Split (1)

train · 184k rows

comment stringlengths 1 9.86k	context sequencelengths 0 530
> ChatGPT will be a big no issue soon. I work in a research field and this was something we worried about last year. As of now there are multiple tools and even more being developed that catch the use of ChatGPT. There has been research published that list ChatGPT as a co-author, but for most research, and use by students, it will simply be forbidden and will easily be caught as well. The program does well but it has a particular style that can be caught. Again it will be a non-issue soon.	[ "/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^\| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.", ">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?", ">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.", ">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?", ">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.", ">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?", ">\n\nYou mean a grade?", ">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication", ">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.", ">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)", ">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.", ">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.", ">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.", ">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.", ">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?", ">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.", ">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.", ">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.", ">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.", ">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.", ">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.", ">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.", ">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.", ">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.", ">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.", ">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.", ">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.", ">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.", ">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use", ">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.", ">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.", ">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.", ">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.", ">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.", ">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.", ">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.", ">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).", ">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.", ">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.", ">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.", ">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.", ">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.", ">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.", ">\n\n\nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \n\nWhy? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it. \n\nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \n\nWhy? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? \nLet's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project. \n\nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.\n\nTotally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator.", ">\n\nFor the most part, knowledge workers perform a given amount of work in a given amount of hours, and the number of them hired by a company is TotalHoursNeeded/NumHoursPerEmployee. E.g. if you have 100 manyears of work to get done in a typical year, you employ 100 people.\nChat GPT isn't going to \"replace\" people wholesale, because as you say someone still needs to supervise it. But it looks to be on track to increase the productivity of programmers (can write a first draft of code and finds many of the bugs instantly). \nSame for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones. \nSo now the TotalNeeded is decreased by some percentage, let's say 10% to start. Now you only need 90 human programmers to do that same work. With 25% efficiency gain, you need 75. With 50%, 50. Etc. \nOr take translation jobs. Today, an editor spends roughly 3 minutes per word editing machine translated text, and 1 minute per word editing human-translated text. As long as editors are more expensive per hour than first translation people, it still makes sense much of the time to hire translators, because the software isn't free. \nBut the graph of machine translation \"efficiency\" is trending towards taking the same amount of time to edit as a human translator. As soon as that's hit, there's literally no reason to hire human translators, only editors. \nAnd if the editing time goes down to 30 seconds/word because of further AI assistance to the editor, you only need half as many of those.", ">\n\nThere is currently two better solutions being worked on - one of which is already being used to some degree. \nThe first is ChatGPT developers themselves making moves to make AI written works to be identified by \"watermark\" or similar. I don't thi k this one has taken effect at all yet. \nAnother is by a separate dev team that allows teachers to use software to determine the amount of an essay, for example, that is written by AI what the likelihood of any one sentence or paragraph to have been written by AI. This allows the teachers to use discretion when determining if the student used the AI in a way that they find acceptable or not. This way instead kf running from the scary AI educators can actually utilize tyhe AI with students to help them develop their writing and other communications.", ">\n\nWhat about kids with transportation issues? When I was in school I knew kids that drove almost an hour each way to get there. I certainly couldn’t have asked my parents to drop everything to take me all the way to school so I could do my homework if I forgot. Bus schedules? Do you think schools want to waste more money by burning more gas for extra routes? I understand where you’re coming from, but for a fair amount of children—especially in poorer, more rural areas—that getting to school and back is such a delicate balancing act that such a thing would just punish them.", ">\n\nI've seen a few key things from academics testing out ChatGPT (I have not signed up myself):\n\nIt tends to produce confident, convincing nonsense. It doesn't actually understand what it's writing about, and I hear it shows.\nIt makes up citations. Real authors in the field, real journals... but made-up titles. Things like that, since, again, it doesn't actually understand citations.\n\nThis suggests that, for assignments requiring the demonstration of genuine, in-depth understanding, and not merely the ability to summarize facts, ChatGPT will fail.\nA similar example that you bring up in the comments is programming cheat sheets into calculators - but for well-designed engineering exams (including the licensure exams, at least in the US), cheat sheets are fine and often either allowed or provided. A well-designed exam tests the ability to apply principles, not knowledge of equations, so a cheat sheet is harmless, or even allows the exam to work better (since people aren't distracted with memorizing equations).", ">\n\nThere are three criticisms that I have of this approach. \n\n\nShould we not teach to the environment that we live in? Yes, education often imposes arbitrary constraints like time tests but for research and reports why not let people use and work around all resources? If you can work around chat gpt to work efficiently, then do it. You learn what it can and can’t do and how to use it effectively as a tool. \n\n\nCan chatGPT on it’s own actually write a good essay? From what I have seen it can pull together a few sources. It can generally write fluff based on other things that it has seen. But it struggles to write analysis. It can’t interrogate a source or make value judgements. It could be useful for doing some filler or providing ideas but if to do an actual report, I think it would be insufficient. \n\n\nAn assignment that can be done using chatgpt is probably boring. Here I am writing an essay for no reason other than I find it interesting to discuss this topic. Perhaps, we arent giving students interesting enough assignments or we are overloading them to the point that they don’t have the time to engage? If chatGPT turns out to be an issue maybe it’s more of an indictment of the structures and norms of education.", ">\n\n\n\nhomework in the form of essays, take home tests, coding assignments, would be completed on school grounds. \n\n\nCongratulations, you've invented the \"cram school\".\nI'd recommend reading through your post again and actually thinking about the things you've said. Because essentially, you're merely advocating for the wholesale elimination of homework and for education outside of that to remain totally unchanged. It's almost literally, \"Make the school day 30% longer\".\nMy solution to the \"problem\" of students potentially using ChatGPT to cheat on homework: I don't think you need a hilariously convoluted system of homework \"boiler rooms\" redolent of national security apparatus, that requires schools to adopt ruinously expensive and disruptive technological and administrative changes.\nIt would be sufficient if we institute a system whereby teachers are encouraged to, let's say... \"test\" their students, whether by regular written exams or by talking to them in what I'll call \"classes\", to ensure they understand the material they've been assigned to learn.\nThis method ensures that students cannot use AI homework bots to coast through classes (since they'll literally be found out the very next class), and has the added benefit of not adding three hours to every teacher's day.", ">\n\nWhat about pen and ink?", ">\n\narguably I can just copy a ChatGPT output by hand. So I think that is a first level measure, but not a complete solution.", ">\n\nIt's a better solution than prison just because the curriculum can't keep up with technology.\nWhen calculators arrived on everyone's phone and everyone's pocket did you advocate for the same solution? Unlikely, so why only now with this system?", ">\n\nWell I did and I was. When I was studying engineering in the 80s we routinely could not arrive at exams with a calculator. Even then calculators were programmable enough to allow students to write cheat sheets in calculator memory.\nIt forced us to memorize equations, principals of engineering, and independent thinking. I’m a better engineer because I did.", ">\n\nSo you're what, almost 60? And you think what's best for children is to be like you? Don't you think you may be a bit out of touch?\nAlso, your view was about K12 students, not engineering students.", ">\n\nNo. As I replied, leaning on tools as a crutch all your life will limit your ability and function as a human. For example, you could argue that basic math isn’t necessary. As matter of fact that was an argument years ago with the advent of calculators.\nHowever, humans should be able to exist and functions without a digital crutch. You should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator. You should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google. There are basic elements of duration necessary since we are all still wet grey matter.", ">\n\n\nYou should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator\n\nBut why?\n\nYou should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google\n\nAgain, why?\nWhere do you get your \"should\" from?\nI have basically all human knowledge in my hand, every equation or conversion I'll ever need day to day, even every language I'll likely ever encounter. Why shouldn't I leave my brain free to think about what it wants and to use my incredible resource as and when it's needed?\nDo you envision some Saw-like situation where you're locked to a wall and need to solve maths equations at pain of death?", ">\n\nThe less you use your brain the less likely your body is to maintain it. Our body functions through a use or lose it principle. Just look people who lose movement function/muscle just by being bedridden for a long time. Our brain is not different.\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.", ">\n\nIs wasting resources on process you can deletage outside not using your brain? You free up that space to put to what you decide is important.\n\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.\n\nThe weakest man with a gun can take out the strongest bodybuilder.", ">\n\nAnd if you decide Tik tok and Netflix are important? How do you think that will affect the cognitive ability of kids?\nI didn't mention strength nor physical strength. And even then the strongest man with a gun will probably take out the weakest man with a gun.(An actual fair comparison)", ">\n\nCouldn't chatgpt (or somesuch AI) be asked \"Hey - did you write this?\" and nip this sort of thing in the bud?", ">\n\nNo, Chat GPT doesn't remember everything it's said, the potential things it could say are huge and even if someone wrote something that Chat GPT might say, it could be a coincidence.", ">\n\nWell, strike that idea then.\nStill though - there must be some way to use AI to deal with this. \"set a thief to catch a thief\" and all that.", ">\n\nChat GPT (and most generative AIs) use GANs to generate content. \nIn laymen's terms (and extremely simplified as it's above my level of understanding) a GAN is 2 AI systems competing against each other, a creator AI that creates content and a checker AI that decides if the content was genuine or made by the other AI. \nSo any automated way to tell if it's AI generated can be built into the checker AI in future versions and the creator AI will learn to avoid whichever features the checker AI is spotting.", ">\n\nChatGPT is just another mechanism for reducing the need for labor, and it's not going away. \nChildren will need to be educated in both how to make effective use of it (for as long as it's not sufficient to completely eliminate mental labor), and also in the ethics of not using it. Always forcing them to write in airgapped places isn't going to do that, it just makes them resent it. \nAlso: essay writing on a scale needed to really learn long-form writing is not very amenable to doing in an airgapped classroom, because honestly we're not using dead-tree sources of information anymore already, so doing their research pretty much has to include doing it on line. \nBut really: laborious manual long-form essay writing is going to go the way of penmanship and looking things up in a library as an unneeded skill very quickly. We need children to adjust to that reality of the modern world rather than pretending it will go away. \nPeople are still needed (for now) to do the important part of writing essays without doing the laborious bit that ChatGPT automates anyway: deciding what to write, and editing it into a convincing and well-written form. \nForcing kids to spend a lot of time learning how to write the basic bulk part of essays is a lot like teaching them how to make buggy-whips in shop class: a pointless exercise. \nIt would be better to give them all prewritten ChatGPT essays and have them learn the limitations and capabilities.", ">\n\nIs ChatGPT really that much more effective than just grabbing things off Wikipedia? I was asking it things about elections and it was just Wikipedia from two years ago", ">\n\nThe answer is NEVER to limit technology. It’s to teach the new generation how to use that technology to achieve the same goal.\nIt’s pointless to ban computers and teach the memorization of dates in history class. It’s much more productive to teach online research skills so that if an individual needs to know the date of a particular moment in history, they can reliably Google it.\nChatGPT is the same. It renders writing essays as pointless, and it necessitates the teachers to adapt to new teaching styles, such as teaching the skills on how best to manipulate ChatGPT to return the information you need.", ">\n\nI was banned from using programming calculators when I studied engineering in the 80s during exams. It forced the students to all be on the same level playing field and forced us to actually know the equations, their applications, and the processes of whatever engineering course I was taking.\nIt made us better engineers.", ">\n\nHow does handicapping you make you a better engineer? If I put you and an engineer trained with technology in the same room together, who do you think would accomplish the task faster?", ">\n\nThe handicapped engineer, easily. The point of forcing students to actually learn the material is so that they understand how to reason about the underlying processes when they need to troubleshoot something going wrong, and understand the tradeoffs between approaches and how to select the best one for the task. \nOnce you understand things deeply you don't actually need training in doing things quickly because it's immediately intuitive how to apply a technological process to save time. The guy that leaned heavily on technology is basically fucked if he has to use a technique or software that he didn't specifically train on since he doesn't have a good foundation to abstract from. It would be more appropriate to call this person a technician.", ">\n\nThe purpose of calculators is to do the menial part of the work, not to solve whole processes. The engineer that learned with calculators likely knows how to select the right process to solve a problem, but uses the calculator to do the math faster and with fewer errors.", ">\n\nAt the college level, we’re not talking about tools to add and multiply. We’re talking about tools like Wolfram Alpha that do entire symbolic manipulations for you. If I took a calculus class and on all the assignments used Wolfram Alpha to find derivatives, do you think I would have learned anything?\nThat is what ChatGPT is doing for essays", ">\n\nThere are things called pencil and paper.", ">\n\nAs I said, this is the first line defense. However as I already commented to another user. I can simply hand copy ChatGPT output. Essentially not doing my own independent research, writing, coding, and studying.", ">\n\nWhy don't you consider that research? \nThe first source was the best. It's incredibly efficient research IMO.", ">\n\nThe idea of tool removal has always been flawed. From calculators to chat GPT and beyond. If your test is so flimsy that a simple tool invalidates it then the test is poorly built. Test shouldn't be simple busywork tasks, they should require thinking, problem solving, complex thought. If it's just a game of memorization that can be cheated by answers on a paper, you've built a bad test.\nover memorization (which is what our current school systems teach) is not only unhelpful, but also harmful. We live in an era of wikipedia being a reliable source, of vast access to tools both online and phsycial. We should be teaching kids they should do the work but with the help of those tools, not despite them.\nThe main issue with your argument is that based on what you've said, i can assume you think the current school system is a good one but so many studies have shown that at least here in the US, the school systems are some of the worst in the world. It's this memorize, ignore tools, singular focus mentality that plays such a big role.\nIf we were more creative with education, incorporating tool utilization into the learning process, we'd likely have a major improvement to our educational successes. I could go on about how the education system prefers certain kinds of students over others, and how many students are left behind simply because they don't learn like other kids and are therefore punished, but I won't. All I'll say is that more restrictions on how and what kids learn isn't going to help them learn more or better.\nand in 15 years when chat GPT is a part of daily life in every single company on the planet in some way or another (which I'm beyond certain it will be), kids who were taught how to properly utilize it will have just such a huge advantage in the workforce over those who weren't", ">\n\nRather than attempt to find ways to prevent new technology from interfering with existing pedagogy, shouldn't we review and revise pedagogy as new technology develops? \nIf a chat AI program can write these things, what is the point of having humans repeatedly do the same work? We don't expect people to use an abacus when doing math, or limit their research to what's in the library card catalogue, or require printed paper publications as essay resources; we adapted to the calculator, and to the internet and search engines. So too should we adapt to things like ChatGPT, not by trying to pretend it doesn't exist, but by finding ways to incorporate it into a more holistic approach to learning.\nRather than chain kids to an airgapped room on school grounds outside of school hours to do homework that's of dubious educational value in the first place, we should take this as an opportunity to refocus schooling on in-class engagement and direct instruction. ChatGPT and programs like it are showing us yet another thing we as humans can outsource to our technology, so why struggle to do things in a more difficult and inefficient way?", ">\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\nIn addition, AI is only as good as the data it is fed. You must still be able to do the work on your own to analyze when the AI is giving valid outputs (garbage in, garbage out). This is especially true, when AI runs the risks of being owned or operated by those with a specific agenda. Can you imagine the trouble that would result if people relied on AI to determine who to vote for, but someone was able to pay the operators to have the AI promote them?\nRelying on AI to do our work for us is a distillation of an appeal to authority fallacy on a large scale (if the AI says it, it must be true).", ">\n\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\n\nThis is something I worry about A LOT when it comes to AI. Our collective understanding of the subjects that we usually classify as \"the humanities\" is constantly evolving as we learn more, and especially as a more diverse set of people are allowed to study, research and put forth opinions and arguments.\nImagine if students were outsourcing all their history, psychology, sociology and philosophy homework to a chatbot with a 1950s understanding of those subjects.\nImagine doctors outsourcing psych patient diagnoses to a chatbot with the same understanding.\nOn an arguably less \"serious\" but still critically important moral and political topic, imagine if all/most videogame art was outsourced to an AI engine with a 1990s sensibility for female characters. Same for all kinds of representation and diversity.\nHow about politics and political science in general... ha!\nEtc, etc etc.\nIt is NOT the case that we already have discovered all the true answers to the big questions, and we can merely turn to a \"knowledge calculator\" like ChatGPT to spit out the truth.\nEven if AI can pretty accurately reflect the discourse of the day, as it is currently understood and accepted, our collective knowledge and culture will stagnate if we do not actively participate in developing it, and we will all pay the price for that.", ">\n\nThese are all moralistic arguments that ultimately don’t mean anything.", ">\n\nI would say they are more epistemic arguments, which do matter greatly in the context of education (which is what the op was referring to).", ">\n\nAre any of these things mentioned actually realistic concerns? Someone is going to train an AI bot to generate 90s female art characters with big tits?\nNo. Lol and even if someone did, who cares?", ">\n\nConsidering how many people believe obviously fake stories that have no supporting evidence (and in spite of contrary evidence), yes, I believe they are very real concerns.\nIf an AI says we should use Brawndo in farming because its got what plants crave (electrolytes), we should probably be able to justify it with reasoning beyond \"the AI says so.\"", ">\n\nWho is suggesting we do anything “just because an AI said so”? \nDo you read books and think everything in it is true “because the book says so”?", ">\n\nHow do you determine if what the book/ai said is false?\nYou would typically do it through a process of research and discovery.\nPeoples' ability to do research and discovery will be greatly diminished if we rely on AI to do those things for us (which is what the previous posters were suggesting).\nTherefore, reliance on AI will lead to us losing the ability to discern if the results of what the AI is saying is correct.", ">\n\nWhat? Lol that doesn’t make any sense at all. \nIt is not like if we use AI then all previous knowledge is simply forgotten or lost. It’s all still there.", ">\n\nForcing homework at school makes that \"not homework\", and this approach has never worked. You cant reject change, it never works. Every time there has been a game changing event, people adapted. Those who tried to reject change disappeared. Horse carriages disappeared from roads because something else replaced it. Some people supposedly rejected progress, but they are lying to themselves, they still use modern tech or services at some point.\nAnyway, the change is here, and it made essays irrelevant. Time to find another way to test people skills. \nGive it a little time though. ChatGPT costs a ginormous amount of money to run and will not stay free for long either.", ">\n\nIt's not just ChatGPT, the actual innovation is not the interface but lies in algorithms that can recreate natural language of similar quality with smaller data samples. There are also OpenSource datasets like ThePile, etc. so even if OpenAI moves to a paid model (and they will, quickly. You can already sign up to be first in line for the API), there will be other free providers.", ">\n\nHaving coded AIs, I disagree. ChatGPT is a regular trained AI. The novelty is the scale of the operation, and the fact there is a public API.\nNo one ever spent that much money on resources to run and train an AI publicly. I am pretty sure google has done something similar with user data sets to make their search engine and general ecosystem.\nI wish there was a way to have algorithms working with smaller data sets and produce similar results, but it kind of does not work that way.", ">\n\nThere are already tools to identify ChatGPT generated texts. Such tools will improve as another use of literally the same technology.\nJust as teachers submit essays for identifying plagiarism, teachers will submit essays for identifying AI-generated text. \nFurther, a focus could change from grading students on what they know to grading students' ability to ask meaningful, content-based questions about the subject. After all, knowing facts isn't particularly valuable as a skill. Integrating facts and discovering valuable questions is still something that remains a uniquely human skill. And is where people will continue to add value as AI becomes more advanced.", ">\n\nStudents have always been able to 'cheat' on work done outside the classroom, by copying or somehow getting others to do their work for them, even before the internet. Yes with more advanced modern technology it is easier but this has always been a concern. \nAs regular learning environments like supervised classrooms are already 'quarantined' in the way you descibe you are fundementally just suggesting an increase in learning hours as a supplement to homework. This has been suggested by many for various reasons but it would overall cuase more issues than it fixes. It increases work load on teachers and administrators, stretching already thin educational budgets, and forces increased mental strain on children. It would limit their ability to do other recreational and out of ciriculum activities. This would be disruptive and controlling when the quantity of teaching and learning time that children recive is already considered sufficiant for a good education.", ">\n\nHell the only thing stopping me from using ChatGPT regularly for my work now is that it's always at capacity.", ">\n\nApply tests that are hand written, doesnt matter how a person obtains the knowledge, actually learning the subject is most important thing.", ">\n\nThere is no amount of ChatGPT that could influence a good old oral exam where the teacher evaluates the understanding via a little chat.", ">\n\nSo tired of this view. We shouldn’t be fighting technology. Teach kids to use the resources they have to find answers. It’s such a waste of 12 years of school, teaching kids to memorize facts and follow rules. \nInstead, every test should be open book and reward the best answers. Ask the kids to show their work or explain their thought process so we reward understanding of a topic rather than memorization of steps or text.", ">\n\n20 years ago, there were already homework communities and learn groups. Even from the publishers of school books and with free access to tutors. Ok, they didnt do the final homework for me, but gave me a great starting point.\nBeing the kid who transcribes a wiki page was already stupid back then when others could call you out:\nBut I guess the actual problem is lack of digital literacy with teachers, they're always 5-10 years behind.", ">\n\nIf you are testing skills that can be done by free tools on the internet, then you are testing irrelevant skills.\nThe best way to educate kids is to test for skills they need, not skills they objectively don't.\nI was able to witness a couple of universities adapt to tests during quarantine, and follow reports on how the new methods would be used going forward.\nThe results where thus:\nMass offline testing is incredibly cost efficient (one examiner per ~300 students), but the tests results are a poor indicator of real world performance.\nOne to One testing is incredibly expensive, but can, when done right, test actual understanding and performance.\nBoth will be useful, of course. Mass testing is most useful when used in a way that students aren't incentivized to cheat, such as when framed as practice.", ">\n\nOne of the upsides of needing to prevent this kind of tech from cheating assignments is that teachers should focus on having students be able to do their homework at school. (As a former teacher, we were trying to do this already- no more than 15 min of homework per class). \nI dont think we need to do quite what you say. We just need to limit outside electronics and have in-person classrooms or computer labs with programs designed to be AI-proof. \nI have ALWAYS believed that cell phones/internet watches should be stored in school lockers (at most) and never allowed anywhere else on campus during the school day. If anyone needs to contact the students they contact the desk who relays their message/other need. Many schools already do this.", ">\n\n∆\nI agree with this. It would help.", ">\n\nThank you!", ">\n\nThat is utterly pointless.\nThere is no reason to limit the available tools.\nThis just reminds me of the entire \"you won't have a calculator wherever you go\" argument.\nSchool should instead put a focus on responsibly using available tools.", ">\n\nAnd if students choose to use them irresponsibly, what should schools do?\nAnd can you please define what constitutes responsible use? Because despite knowing about plagiarism, people still copy and paste from the internet. Perfect abstinence is easier than perfect moderation after all.", ">\n\nJust return to hand written essays and have more oral exams.", ">\n\n∆l\nActually of all comments having oral exams compliments my post and I agree with you. Enjoy the delta.", ">\n\nIn a Faraday cage.", ">\n\nIf children can just generate work with ChatGPT, it simply shows that children are not being taught anything valuable. (Once ChatGPT responses can be generated in almost unlimited amounts at very low cost, it necessarily means those responses are of low value)\nInstead shouldn't we be teaching children to provide more valuable outcomes that ChatGPT can't replicate?", ">\n\nBeing able to do on your own what ChatGPT does with access to an immense amount of data and processing power is valuable. The actual writing isn't valuable, obviously, but it would be silly to expect it to be. It's just a side effect of practice, you spend time making things of little or no value to build up the skills you'll need to make something that actually matters. That's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\nI think you'd be hard pressed to teach a class of children to outperform ChatGPT in writing without ever asking them to write something that could also be done via AI. What would that even look like?", ">\n\n\nThat's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\n\nIt is a problem. That is why I hated math class until 2nd year of university.", ">\n\nDid you start discovering novel math results in your second year of university, or was that just the point at which you first encountered problems you found interesting, despite the fact that someone else had already solved them before? Thinking back the class you didn't hate, do you think it should be removed if someone can construct an AI to give all the answers you gave?", ">\n\nThis is only a method for evaluating students, it doesn't do anything to educate them.\nChatgpt is potentially a great tool for education but trying to find complex ways around it for homework is pointless. When testing fact retention is required using school/university computers with no web browsing makes sense. For any other test or situation it's a tool that might be used.", ">\n\nI understand OPs concern. That said, I do not think you can create true quarantine for a multitude of reasons. \nThe biggest one is probably time. I worked through high school and university. Because I lived in the middle of nowhere it was about a 30 min drive to high school and then an hour to uni. Having to stay at these quarantine zones to complete assignments would have been hell on my schedule, car, and wallet. \nYou said it yourself, if someone is going to cheat, they will cheat. If I had to do the work in a quarantine zone, what exactly stops me from doing the actual work on my computer at home, printing it all out, and then just writing that into the computer at the quarantine zone? Unless you want to try having students write an entire essay in their hour long class? There has to be a point where they go home and then this falls apart.", ">\n\nThere are already lots of ways to cheat in homework and mostly our steps to deal with that amount to the honour system, and by university level, automated plagiarism detection (which can be quite easily avoided). The point you \"won't argue\" that people will cheat if given the opportunity is probably the actual crux of what's wrong with your suggestion and the part that needs a big [citation needed]. Concluding that the majority of people are fundamentally dishonest is a big assumption to handwave away. \nIf you want an education, cheating is stupid. Ultimately you might get a paper qualification out of it but you'll have actually learned nothing - you won't hold up long against someone who has done it properly when you actually have to apply the skills. Or if you do, then the assignments weren't that crucial to the learning in the first place.", ">\n\nMany of the things I learned in school were largely irrelevant. I couldn't use a calculator to do long division. After I passed those early elementary school years I never did long division again. I wouldn't even argue learning the long division algo is mandatory. It's nice to have learnt it I guess, but I spent way too many hours on it. I can see learning fundamentals of essay writing, etc, are great, but why can't we just evolve to learn more effective things in life? ChatGPT should be used as a tool, not viewed as a detriment.", ">\n\nIt'd suggest that the best way to educate them is to embrace ChatGBT and teach them to use it well. Your method is a bit like teaching kids to do math without calculators or accounting without excel or financial software. There is some value, but it runs out very quickly and you're at a social and competetive disadvantage for taking some archane principled approach to education that is more of a defense of \"how we used to do it\".\nI'm old enough to remember when using a word processor was sometime forbidden for reasons of fairness - that seems entirely disconnected now from doing good work and it's almost hard to envision the thought process of those who thought everything should be hand written for students. \nIsn't the kid who is amazing at utilizing tools like ChatGBT going to do much better in the world than the one who does not? Your idea of \"proper education\" would easily regress back to needing to do all subjects scrawled in dirt with sticks and grunted in non-standardized language.", ">\n\nOR, chatgpt will be a great boon to the entire education system:\nIncreased accessibility: ChatGPT and other AI-powered systems can provide education to individuals who otherwise would not have access to it, due to geographical, financial, or other barriers.\n\nPersonalized learning: ChatGPT can provide personalized education experiences based on each student's strengths, weaknesses, and learning style.\n\n24/7 availability: ChatGPT can operate 24/7, providing students with access to education at any time, anywhere, which can be especially beneficial for those with demanding schedules or for individuals in remote areas.\n\nScalability: ChatGPT can provide education to a large number of students simultaneously, which could help to address the shortage of teachers and resources in some areas.\n\nCost-effectiveness: ChatGPT can be a more cost-effective option for providing education compared to traditional methods, as it does not require physical classrooms or teachers.\n\nImproved student engagement: ChatGPT can provide interactive, engaging learning experiences that can hold students' attention and foster deeper learning.\n\n--Source: ChatGPT", ">\n\nThere a lots of places where texts and exams are “open book”. The questions have to be written differently, and the point is that you’re not testing someone’s ability to memorize, but rather their ability to understand. This is a more difficult test to write, so in theory AI could force education to improve since everyone would a virtual tutor with them at all times.", ">\n\nI'm a teacher and I've been thinking a lot about this the last couple months. Changes within the education system/curriculum/syllabus/retraining of teachers will take far too long to keep up with the ease of access to, and success of, chatgpt and AI in general. \nThe only solution moving forward both short and long term is to embrace it, there is no stopping it now anyway and if we don't all want to be out of a job in 5 years we need to - \n- demonstrate feasible/moral/ethical use of such tools\n- create more opportunities for collaborative learning/hands-on/problem solving tasks and ones that increase communication skills between peers. \nHow this applies to each individual, specific task will vary and must require a lot of creativity and trial and error, but I think relying too heavily on your department of education to handle this (or most 'boots on the ground' problems) will ultimately only degrade a students experience and ability for learning.", ">\n\nI'm with you on what you're trying to accomplish. I just don't know that it's the \"best\" way. \nFor instance, how is homework performed in school superior to trusting the kids to learn the material, which would then be tested by oral exam? And yes, I do believe that asking a student to verbally explain a topic is a really good way to gauge mastery.", ">\n\nThere is not a hope in hell that we'll go back to hand written stuff. That's not how technology works. As the music companies. There are better ways to show you know a subject, for sure, than the current out of-date ones. That's for sure. Have you ever taken an on-line exam?", ">\n\nI argue to let them use chatGPT as it will be their future. This is similar to my generations \"you'll never walk around with a calculator so learn math.\" The future children will grow into a society where work means utilizing AI tech to help them thrive. If chatGPT helps them write an essay, and it's good, it means they're using resources. I agree, however, that we should supplement this with actual reading and writing.", ">\n\nI would argue that most of time that ChatGPT and similar technologies is going to be an issue is in 8-12 grade and college.\nThis technology is not going away, and it's only going to improve. Personally I would treat it like calculators, audio books and spell check.\nTech kids how to use the technology properly. Sure it's somewhat handy to calculate numbers in your head, but having the ability to do math in your head does not give you much of an advantage in today's world and not being able to doesn't hurt you much. But it's still critical to know formulas and how to peace together algebraic statements and word problems. \nKnowing how to spell properly is less important than knowing proper word usage - most times you're writing something it can be spell-checked in real time. Sure it's \"terrible that today's kids...\" don't know how to spell... but it's not going to affect their career. \nEnter ChatGPT - same thing. Should I spend the time to write a white paper on the changing advertising landscape to alert my boss about the a potential seismic shift in advertising revenue, or should I ask ChatGPT to write it? As a user I have to understand its limits and potential copywrite issues, but even more importantly how to verify that what it writes is correct and targeting the right audience. Is data from before 2020 going to be recent and accurate enough for my thesis? How do I supplement the discussion with real-world data? \nThis is our new reality. We should be learning how to use the tools properly, not trying to figure out to lock it down (which frankly makes as much sense as locking down the use of calculators or spell check).", ">\n\nI think there are already apps in place that are able to detect AI generated text (Read this article).\nAlso, I think a better method would be to simply have a database of ChatGPT (could be encrypted) generated text and make it available to already existing software that is use to detect plagiarism (this is just an exemple amongst many)", ">\n\nFrankly I don’t think high schoolers and below should be given homework or tests at all. One learns magnitudes better through exploration as opposed to mindless repetition. Engage with these kids intellectually, make them free thinking Athenians, not bags of knowledge of which they have no idea how to use.\nDoes it not surprise anyone that we train people for over a decade in intellect yet hardly have any intellectuals?", ">\n\nI would argue that society would be better off spending resources on teaching children how to use this tool effectively. Knowing how to get the right answer is what matters in this world.", ">\n\nThen answer this: Well why learn math at all? Seriously.\nWhy learn he concept of subtraction let alone division? I could and society has argued that with the advent of digital calculators. \nYet we learn it. \nLater we use calculators to take the mundane and already known processes to the next level. We abstract away the mundane. \nAs a EE having worked and am working on products you may be using right now to read this, when I develop new silicon and chips I don’t break out Karnaugh maps and lay down circuit using a T square and stencils of gates. But I sure the hell know what I’m doing and expect the tools to do for me. \nTeaching fundamentals of reading, writing, arithmetic, essays, research are just that fundamental.", ">\n\nI’d argue that the vast majority don’t need anything beyond basic math anyways. \nGo ask the average adult if they know the quadratic equation and what it means and you’d probably be disappointed.", ">\n\nChatGPT is here to stay, you'd better advocate for teaching people how to make the most of it and use it wisely instead of pretending it doesn't exist.\nOne of my favourite teachers always told students to use the best tools there are.", ">\n\nI think it depends completely on the topic. In my field of study, it’s fairly easy to come up with term paper assignments that the bot would be useless for. \nLooking back at the paper I wrote last year, I don’t see how any current bot could have helped, as it isn’t able to read or summarize specific sources (yet?).\nAn example of the type of assignments we get is “Discuss the role of state capacity in x and x conflict in light of (specific research paper)‘s dimensions of state capacity - do your findings confirm the findings of (authors), why or why not?\nThis way of combining literature made it difficult even for me to be on top of it, as there were no sources that had attempted this exact combination - it has to be original. \nAlso, I find it’s the best way to learn, because you have to rely on your own judgement and there are no shortcuts, even asking the professor was unhelpful as he wasn’t too familiar with the details.", ">\n\nThis is not the best way.", ">\n\n\nThese homework rooms would have Internet connected computers for use but access to ChatGPT would be filtered and blocked.\n\nThis wouldn't be feasible, there's far too many roundabout ways to still access ChatGPT. Security measures like domain filtering are just unproductive games of whack-a-mole. \nEdit: removed all the other stuff I wrote, as those points have already been mentioned in previous top-level comments.", ">\n\nHomework shouldn’t be the go-to method of “education” to begin with. Imo Universities should focus on the integral part of education: the lectures. Tools like chatgpt can help student who are actually interested in a subject to learn more easily about it, but whether students actually learn anything or not from a class won’t change regardless of if work is authentic or copied from an AI\nSource: I’m a college student and have had experience in both supervised environments where we had to do work without the use of computers/phones and solely-online environments where many students cheated", ">\n\nWhile this could work, it is not necessarily the best way in terms of accessibility and of learning in general. \nFirst, students with ADHD and certain other conditions may not necessarily be the able to be productive at all times, or at the specific time they have to work on those computers, especially if those computers are not in an environment ideal to that specific person. It would also not be very feasible to give students enough time on these computers to complete the bigger assignments and essays. \nSecond, while ChatGPT is quite advanced, it simply works by looking at language patterns and often gets factual details incorrect. For example, with bigger coding problems, it tries to import modules that do not exist or call on functions that it has not defined. In literature, it cannot analyze texts on much more than a surface level. I will admit it can use secondary sources for textual analysis, however, it is unable to come up with a clear thesis on its own. \nAdditionally, take-home tests can be just as easily cheated on using a normal Google search, and usually test thinking skills rather than understanding and knowledge. \nFinally, essay-writing and other types of assignments are generally not ideal for learning as they are only one type of skill, and university professors are recognizing this. Not only do they not work for all learning styles, but they are only used so commonly because of tradition. University professors are structuring assignments around ways that are innovative enough that ChatGPT is unable to work on them. Along with requiring specific readings which the AI might not have access to, and citing of all sources (which has always been a requirement that the AI might trip up on), they are also going away from the traditional essay format into others. For example, I am studying literature, a relatively essay-heavy field, and in my past few courses I have been asked to analyze comics (which the AI cannot read), edit other people’s essays and articles (from past courses), create a mock syllabus or lesson plan with justifications for each reading, and create annotated bibliographies as a stepping stone to an essay. All of these not only require different skills and encourage different types of learning and research but are quite difficult for an AI to do. \nAll in all, while your suggestion is great, the very nature of the AI and the fact that it exists at all is perhaps a sign that the best course of action is to rework the way we think about evaluation. After all, if an evaluation is such that an AI can complete it without the ability to actually think (it works by using observed language patterns), then perhaps the evaluation is not ideal.", ">\n\nI bet teachers and people thought the same thing about calculators when they came out or 1990s internet. AI bots like chat GPT are just a tool.", ">\n\nAll this effectively does is train kids to accomplish goals of a type that do not exist in the real world in a situation they will never realistically encounter. A better goal is adjusting testing criteria to account for this.\nThere might be very specific sets of knowledge for which rote memorization is appropriate, and for those, the air gapped testing may be appropriate. But I believe those are the exception rather than the rule. By and large, teaching kids to effectively utilize the tools that will be available to them is what we should be doing.", ">\n\nImagine learning where the only books are hand written.\nThe printing press took out a huge amount of repetitive labor in the learning process.\nAI/ChatGPT stands a good chance of removing a huge amount knowledge labor which stands between an idea and the end product. Learning to use the AI to best effect the Idea->End Product Chain is more important than worrying about memorizing formulae we will likely never need to remember. \nThe effort to restrict ChatGPT is just education system worrying about their Cheese Being Moved.", ">\n\nThis just doesn't make any sense to me. You're arguing that we shouldn't allow students to use tools they would have at their disposal in a real working environment, and for what? Why wouldn't you want students to use every tool at their disposal? How exactly is handicapping them helping them to understand the coursework?\nA much better approach would be to fundamentally alter how we teach to better prepare them for the workforce. Encouraging collaboration and creative problem solving skills is much more practical and effective.", ">\n\nChatGPT may pass the Bar, but I highly doubt it will replace lawyers or other professionals. \nThe whole point of credentialing is to drive accountability. Anyone can study the law and cite precedent without a law degree. Actually representing a client in a court of law requires oversight and knowledge. ChatGPT isn't perfect - it will make mistakes from time to time. So who is responsible when it makes a mistake? When is a client (who is not familiar with the law) supposed to know that a mistake has been made on their behalf? For this reason, until ChatGPT is literally perfect you're always going to need a credentialed professional to review the output.\nFor the record, I think ChatGPT is wonderful. But it's a tool that people will use, not a full-fledged replacement for professionals. My employer (a Fortune 500 company) has already rejected its use for internal projects. IT has the website blocked.", ">\n\nThe kids that are educated without its use will fall behind in business when faced with kids that are using it to its fullest extent.\nYou've successfully made an argument for people to succeed in a test that is worthless in the real world. Its parameters don't match.", ">\n\nThe best way to educate children is to teach them skills and strategies that will actually serve them in the workplace of the future. \nChatGPT already has reached the point of replacing humans (See Buzzfeed news). If ChatGPT can take the test or do the homework then what value is that education going to be to these students? Especially older students will quickly see rote memorization as a waste of time and so yes they probably will cheat if they have the opportunity. Trying to force these things to be “learned” and prove that knowledge by brute force banning things is going to be a costly uphill battle.", ">\n\nWhat if we modify how essays are written by students, by asking them to include citations (which is something ChatGPT can’t do)?\nWe can’t stop new tools from making old methods obsolete. But we can focus on enhancing critical thinking of students in a stepwise manner. When a new tool is created, think about how you can adapt rather than resist it.", ">\n\nWhy not just train an ai to spot ai written papers?", ">\n\nWhat about gradually putting more emphasis on oral assignments?", ">\n\nEverything you said makes perfect sense...IF the goal was to teach children simply how to write the perfect standard essay. But that is a very limited way of viewing education and what its real goal is. The real goal of education is to teach children how to think. To come up with the right questions, not just the right answers. In a world where a \"good enough\" essay on literally anything can be conjured as if by magic by a machine, what's the actual value of that exercise now? For a very long time teachers have used the essay as a way to evaluate how a person thinks. Now that a machine can write it for you, we need new ways to evaluate how students think. That's the real task we are facing. Fuck the essay, just like we ditched the slide rule for calculators and later computers, etc. Tools change but the real game remains the same: Think for yourself!", ">\n\nI'd say the best way would be to accept the reality of changing technology and reevaluating the approach we have towards education as a whole.\nGranted, I'd say that's only one half of the picture: reassessing how we conceive if jobs and labour in the face of increasing automation goes along with that, and I think neither really works without the other.\nBottom line is that human labour is more and more obsolete as time goes on, so human jobs will be less and less in demand (I'd argue moving away from a capitalistic system is the right call, but even if you don't, automation is still an incentive).\nSince a large part of the incentive of our current education system is \"prepare you for a job\" I think the whole thing is going to fall short in light of these kinds of systems developing.\nTheres lots of people now who pursue knowledge as a project of passion, rather than a means to an end, and I think moving to a system that supports and encourages that kind of ambition is the way to go.", ">\n\nI disagree. We should learn to use the tools we have efficiently. Otherwise you are not learning for your career but for some professors ego", ">\n\nThat’s not “education in the era of ChatGPT.” That’s education in the era before ChatGPT while we figure out what the world with ChatGPT will look like so we have some idea of what to do with it.\nThat’s also not “educating,” that’s just “assessment.” Assessment is simply a measuring system for education. As long as you think of the acquisition of knowledge and skill as requiring knowledge regurgitation and skill performance in isolation and divorced from context/individualized, then you’re going to end up at necessitating a kind of geofenced, Luddite assessment model. The training itself predicates the assessment method. How we assess is defined by how we teach, and vice versa.\nThe best assessment method to gauge understanding is, and always has been, conversation.\nAll we need to do is pair assessment with regular conversation between qualified teacher and student to determine if personal comprehension is present. Not an interview, not an interrogation — conversation. Problem solving performance contexts are also great revealer of internalized knowledge and skill.\nChatGPT is a relative nonissue if your approach to assessment is at all human.\nIt’s only a problem when you’re trying to mechanize and dehumanized education. “Rigorous” does not mean “mechanical.” We are going to have to trust the professional, knowledge- and skill-assessing judgements of humans who already know and can do.\nEducation reverts to having more emphasis on apprenticeship and mentorship models, where the relationship itself is part of the learning process. \n(The “accountability!” cranks are gonna love that…)", ">\n\nI have a strong suspicion that discussions like this, while very interesting, will be obsolete long before any changes can actually be implemented in schools. In fact, I'm pretty sure schools will be gone entirely in the near future.\nAs of right now, you can be taught almost any subject by an exceptionally well-spoken, fast and infinitely patient teacher called GPT to a university level, if not higher. Try it right now - go ask GPT to explain the political situation that allowed Alexander the Great to conquer Persia, or ask it to explain the raytracing algorithm. If there's a part you don't understand, ask it to clarify. You'll be amazed how accessible it makes advanced topics.\nNow, how long before we have VR software with a realistic-looking AI teacher, with an AI-generated voice, who can do the same thing, but respond to students' voices and use body language and visual demonstrations? Five years?\nHow long after that before this tech is cheap, and of such high quality that sending your kids to school will be a worse education?\nNow in, say, 20 years, we could have an AI system that takes a DNA sample, analyses a students genotype to understand what subjects they will be naturally good at, what education approaches will be most successful, and continuously improves its model of the student's behavior by observing them. It crafts a decades-long education journey tailored to the individual, and accompanies them the entire way.\nTeachers, as far as they've existed so far, don't have a chance.", ">\n\nAre you trying to test someone or teach them?\nIf the latter, why do you care about cheating? This reminds me of the ol' teachers who used to restrict calculators because \"you won't always have a calculator with you.\"", ">\n\nYou forget that for 99% of homework students could just copy each other's work. Having the answers out in the world accessible is not a new problem. You just make homework a small part of the grades and you make sure students understand it's important to actually do it or they won't do well on the tests.", ">\n\nThere are so many people that can’t do the basic math examples you mentioned somewhere and they went to school at a time when there were no calculators.\nOn the other hand I was allowed to use calculators in school pretty much the moment I left elementary school and I am really quite good at math even without assistance.\nTool usage is one of humanities key features and trying to work against it instead of finding ways to incorporate new technology into school and life seems backwards.", ">\n\nIronically the teacher will have to use an AI to decipher the \"hand written\" assignments.", ">\n\nYou can't force people to learn.", ">\n\nWhat about teaching how to think rather than how to memorize? Just a thought 💭", ">\n\nThey need to get rid of homework, and have students do their work while they're at school. It's awful, they just pile it on, even if a class only has a little homework that day, there's like 6 or 7 classes so it's a nightmare for students. Seems like the only way to prevent cheating is have them do work in class, so I hope for the students sake, they do that.", ">\n\nI’ll throw my idea into the ring, though we’re still a few years off from this technology:\nWe should have students interact with AI tutors that can prompt them questions and point out details. Then they can collaborate on assignments, and the AI tutor can give feedback and suggest snippets. The AI can evaluate their work and their engagement with the material.", ">\n\nOne of Transformers main applications is in search. Ie you get a set of embeddings you can compare the pairwise distances between embedding and get a list of scores that tell you which embeddings are most similar to the input. \nEssentially tools like google are made to reduce the search space for a given query collect likely links and then rerank the most likely results. \nChatgpt basically does this in a more direct way of searching through a space of potential responses. Basically trained on a task to predict next token given the previous tokens or fill in a mask\nTransformers permeate everything students use from the recommendation algorithms on TikTok Facebook, YouTube to search systems in google. \nIn my opinion students should absolutely not be taught to fear these tools tho I do agree they be tested in constrained environments to challenge them. Current systems should not be used to learn unless you have a clear understanding and are willing to check every word and check your reasoning. Future systems will be much better though so this problem isn’t going anywhere. \nIf anything there should be a push to make these ideas more interpretable to a younger audience and give them the tools to navigate an increasingly complex market of ideas. They should be aware of the limitations and how when they use a piece of software their actions and the actions of those around them are influencing what they see next. \nIt should be used and taught with rigor. \nIt’s programming 2.0", ">\n\nDude no; \nChatGPT is the computer. \nDo you want to be the education system that banned the computer and then wondered why all the other education systems output modern tech workers, while your education system kept outputting chimney sweeps and car factory workers?", ">\n\nHW only exists to make students practice, and generally is worth less than 20% of the grade in a class. If a student chooses to use chat GPT to bypass it then that’s the student’s loss.\nUltimately exams are what schools use to evaluate a students knowledge and I don’t think that’s going to change anytime soon", ">\n\nThere are already programs that check if something was written by an AI or not. Also no student I know actually uses chatGPT for major assignments because chatGPT doesn’t know every text to ever be published so it doesn’t understand the context, and most of the time will just bullshit an answer that’s incorrect.\nEveryone I know that uses chatGPT for school do so for either for assignments so small and simple that it doesn’t make sense to quarantine, or they use it as a more advanced google that can answer questions more accurately than a search engine could, essentially just saving time.\n(most) students are using chatGPT largely as a productivity and time management tool rather than to cheat.", ">\n\nThis is like saying “in the age of calculators, the only way to ensure kids learn maths is to ban calculators in school”. If looked at correctly, chatgpt is an effect multiplier, learning just has to be rejigged to have kids learn to do things that they can’t simply ask chatgpt to do for them.", ">\n\nLess course work and more exams is the future in a world with chatGPT." ]
> This is like forbidding people to use a calculator because it can give you the result instant. A better way is to teach them how to use the calculator, because its here now and won't go away. Same with GPT. Children can learn way better/faster with ChatGPD if used correctly. Imaging having a private teacher for free which helps you learning every time of the day.	[ "/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^\| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.", ">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?", ">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.", ">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?", ">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.", ">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?", ">\n\nYou mean a grade?", ">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication", ">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.", ">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)", ">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.", ">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.", ">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.", ">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.", ">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?", ">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.", ">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.", ">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.", ">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.", ">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.", ">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.", ">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.", ">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.", ">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.", ">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.", ">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.", ">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.", ">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.", ">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use", ">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.", ">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.", ">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.", ">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.", ">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.", ">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.", ">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.", ">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).", ">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.", ">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.", ">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.", ">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.", ">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.", ">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.", ">\n\n\nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \n\nWhy? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it. \n\nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \n\nWhy? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? \nLet's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project. \n\nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.\n\nTotally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator.", ">\n\nFor the most part, knowledge workers perform a given amount of work in a given amount of hours, and the number of them hired by a company is TotalHoursNeeded/NumHoursPerEmployee. E.g. if you have 100 manyears of work to get done in a typical year, you employ 100 people.\nChat GPT isn't going to \"replace\" people wholesale, because as you say someone still needs to supervise it. But it looks to be on track to increase the productivity of programmers (can write a first draft of code and finds many of the bugs instantly). \nSame for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones. \nSo now the TotalNeeded is decreased by some percentage, let's say 10% to start. Now you only need 90 human programmers to do that same work. With 25% efficiency gain, you need 75. With 50%, 50. Etc. \nOr take translation jobs. Today, an editor spends roughly 3 minutes per word editing machine translated text, and 1 minute per word editing human-translated text. As long as editors are more expensive per hour than first translation people, it still makes sense much of the time to hire translators, because the software isn't free. \nBut the graph of machine translation \"efficiency\" is trending towards taking the same amount of time to edit as a human translator. As soon as that's hit, there's literally no reason to hire human translators, only editors. \nAnd if the editing time goes down to 30 seconds/word because of further AI assistance to the editor, you only need half as many of those.", ">\n\nThere is currently two better solutions being worked on - one of which is already being used to some degree. \nThe first is ChatGPT developers themselves making moves to make AI written works to be identified by \"watermark\" or similar. I don't thi k this one has taken effect at all yet. \nAnother is by a separate dev team that allows teachers to use software to determine the amount of an essay, for example, that is written by AI what the likelihood of any one sentence or paragraph to have been written by AI. This allows the teachers to use discretion when determining if the student used the AI in a way that they find acceptable or not. This way instead kf running from the scary AI educators can actually utilize tyhe AI with students to help them develop their writing and other communications.", ">\n\nWhat about kids with transportation issues? When I was in school I knew kids that drove almost an hour each way to get there. I certainly couldn’t have asked my parents to drop everything to take me all the way to school so I could do my homework if I forgot. Bus schedules? Do you think schools want to waste more money by burning more gas for extra routes? I understand where you’re coming from, but for a fair amount of children—especially in poorer, more rural areas—that getting to school and back is such a delicate balancing act that such a thing would just punish them.", ">\n\nI've seen a few key things from academics testing out ChatGPT (I have not signed up myself):\n\nIt tends to produce confident, convincing nonsense. It doesn't actually understand what it's writing about, and I hear it shows.\nIt makes up citations. Real authors in the field, real journals... but made-up titles. Things like that, since, again, it doesn't actually understand citations.\n\nThis suggests that, for assignments requiring the demonstration of genuine, in-depth understanding, and not merely the ability to summarize facts, ChatGPT will fail.\nA similar example that you bring up in the comments is programming cheat sheets into calculators - but for well-designed engineering exams (including the licensure exams, at least in the US), cheat sheets are fine and often either allowed or provided. A well-designed exam tests the ability to apply principles, not knowledge of equations, so a cheat sheet is harmless, or even allows the exam to work better (since people aren't distracted with memorizing equations).", ">\n\nThere are three criticisms that I have of this approach. \n\n\nShould we not teach to the environment that we live in? Yes, education often imposes arbitrary constraints like time tests but for research and reports why not let people use and work around all resources? If you can work around chat gpt to work efficiently, then do it. You learn what it can and can’t do and how to use it effectively as a tool. \n\n\nCan chatGPT on it’s own actually write a good essay? From what I have seen it can pull together a few sources. It can generally write fluff based on other things that it has seen. But it struggles to write analysis. It can’t interrogate a source or make value judgements. It could be useful for doing some filler or providing ideas but if to do an actual report, I think it would be insufficient. \n\n\nAn assignment that can be done using chatgpt is probably boring. Here I am writing an essay for no reason other than I find it interesting to discuss this topic. Perhaps, we arent giving students interesting enough assignments or we are overloading them to the point that they don’t have the time to engage? If chatGPT turns out to be an issue maybe it’s more of an indictment of the structures and norms of education.", ">\n\n\n\nhomework in the form of essays, take home tests, coding assignments, would be completed on school grounds. \n\n\nCongratulations, you've invented the \"cram school\".\nI'd recommend reading through your post again and actually thinking about the things you've said. Because essentially, you're merely advocating for the wholesale elimination of homework and for education outside of that to remain totally unchanged. It's almost literally, \"Make the school day 30% longer\".\nMy solution to the \"problem\" of students potentially using ChatGPT to cheat on homework: I don't think you need a hilariously convoluted system of homework \"boiler rooms\" redolent of national security apparatus, that requires schools to adopt ruinously expensive and disruptive technological and administrative changes.\nIt would be sufficient if we institute a system whereby teachers are encouraged to, let's say... \"test\" their students, whether by regular written exams or by talking to them in what I'll call \"classes\", to ensure they understand the material they've been assigned to learn.\nThis method ensures that students cannot use AI homework bots to coast through classes (since they'll literally be found out the very next class), and has the added benefit of not adding three hours to every teacher's day.", ">\n\nWhat about pen and ink?", ">\n\narguably I can just copy a ChatGPT output by hand. So I think that is a first level measure, but not a complete solution.", ">\n\nIt's a better solution than prison just because the curriculum can't keep up with technology.\nWhen calculators arrived on everyone's phone and everyone's pocket did you advocate for the same solution? Unlikely, so why only now with this system?", ">\n\nWell I did and I was. When I was studying engineering in the 80s we routinely could not arrive at exams with a calculator. Even then calculators were programmable enough to allow students to write cheat sheets in calculator memory.\nIt forced us to memorize equations, principals of engineering, and independent thinking. I’m a better engineer because I did.", ">\n\nSo you're what, almost 60? And you think what's best for children is to be like you? Don't you think you may be a bit out of touch?\nAlso, your view was about K12 students, not engineering students.", ">\n\nNo. As I replied, leaning on tools as a crutch all your life will limit your ability and function as a human. For example, you could argue that basic math isn’t necessary. As matter of fact that was an argument years ago with the advent of calculators.\nHowever, humans should be able to exist and functions without a digital crutch. You should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator. You should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google. There are basic elements of duration necessary since we are all still wet grey matter.", ">\n\n\nYou should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator\n\nBut why?\n\nYou should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google\n\nAgain, why?\nWhere do you get your \"should\" from?\nI have basically all human knowledge in my hand, every equation or conversion I'll ever need day to day, even every language I'll likely ever encounter. Why shouldn't I leave my brain free to think about what it wants and to use my incredible resource as and when it's needed?\nDo you envision some Saw-like situation where you're locked to a wall and need to solve maths equations at pain of death?", ">\n\nThe less you use your brain the less likely your body is to maintain it. Our body functions through a use or lose it principle. Just look people who lose movement function/muscle just by being bedridden for a long time. Our brain is not different.\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.", ">\n\nIs wasting resources on process you can deletage outside not using your brain? You free up that space to put to what you decide is important.\n\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.\n\nThe weakest man with a gun can take out the strongest bodybuilder.", ">\n\nAnd if you decide Tik tok and Netflix are important? How do you think that will affect the cognitive ability of kids?\nI didn't mention strength nor physical strength. And even then the strongest man with a gun will probably take out the weakest man with a gun.(An actual fair comparison)", ">\n\nCouldn't chatgpt (or somesuch AI) be asked \"Hey - did you write this?\" and nip this sort of thing in the bud?", ">\n\nNo, Chat GPT doesn't remember everything it's said, the potential things it could say are huge and even if someone wrote something that Chat GPT might say, it could be a coincidence.", ">\n\nWell, strike that idea then.\nStill though - there must be some way to use AI to deal with this. \"set a thief to catch a thief\" and all that.", ">\n\nChat GPT (and most generative AIs) use GANs to generate content. \nIn laymen's terms (and extremely simplified as it's above my level of understanding) a GAN is 2 AI systems competing against each other, a creator AI that creates content and a checker AI that decides if the content was genuine or made by the other AI. \nSo any automated way to tell if it's AI generated can be built into the checker AI in future versions and the creator AI will learn to avoid whichever features the checker AI is spotting.", ">\n\nChatGPT is just another mechanism for reducing the need for labor, and it's not going away. \nChildren will need to be educated in both how to make effective use of it (for as long as it's not sufficient to completely eliminate mental labor), and also in the ethics of not using it. Always forcing them to write in airgapped places isn't going to do that, it just makes them resent it. \nAlso: essay writing on a scale needed to really learn long-form writing is not very amenable to doing in an airgapped classroom, because honestly we're not using dead-tree sources of information anymore already, so doing their research pretty much has to include doing it on line. \nBut really: laborious manual long-form essay writing is going to go the way of penmanship and looking things up in a library as an unneeded skill very quickly. We need children to adjust to that reality of the modern world rather than pretending it will go away. \nPeople are still needed (for now) to do the important part of writing essays without doing the laborious bit that ChatGPT automates anyway: deciding what to write, and editing it into a convincing and well-written form. \nForcing kids to spend a lot of time learning how to write the basic bulk part of essays is a lot like teaching them how to make buggy-whips in shop class: a pointless exercise. \nIt would be better to give them all prewritten ChatGPT essays and have them learn the limitations and capabilities.", ">\n\nIs ChatGPT really that much more effective than just grabbing things off Wikipedia? I was asking it things about elections and it was just Wikipedia from two years ago", ">\n\nThe answer is NEVER to limit technology. It’s to teach the new generation how to use that technology to achieve the same goal.\nIt’s pointless to ban computers and teach the memorization of dates in history class. It’s much more productive to teach online research skills so that if an individual needs to know the date of a particular moment in history, they can reliably Google it.\nChatGPT is the same. It renders writing essays as pointless, and it necessitates the teachers to adapt to new teaching styles, such as teaching the skills on how best to manipulate ChatGPT to return the information you need.", ">\n\nI was banned from using programming calculators when I studied engineering in the 80s during exams. It forced the students to all be on the same level playing field and forced us to actually know the equations, their applications, and the processes of whatever engineering course I was taking.\nIt made us better engineers.", ">\n\nHow does handicapping you make you a better engineer? If I put you and an engineer trained with technology in the same room together, who do you think would accomplish the task faster?", ">\n\nThe handicapped engineer, easily. The point of forcing students to actually learn the material is so that they understand how to reason about the underlying processes when they need to troubleshoot something going wrong, and understand the tradeoffs between approaches and how to select the best one for the task. \nOnce you understand things deeply you don't actually need training in doing things quickly because it's immediately intuitive how to apply a technological process to save time. The guy that leaned heavily on technology is basically fucked if he has to use a technique or software that he didn't specifically train on since he doesn't have a good foundation to abstract from. It would be more appropriate to call this person a technician.", ">\n\nThe purpose of calculators is to do the menial part of the work, not to solve whole processes. The engineer that learned with calculators likely knows how to select the right process to solve a problem, but uses the calculator to do the math faster and with fewer errors.", ">\n\nAt the college level, we’re not talking about tools to add and multiply. We’re talking about tools like Wolfram Alpha that do entire symbolic manipulations for you. If I took a calculus class and on all the assignments used Wolfram Alpha to find derivatives, do you think I would have learned anything?\nThat is what ChatGPT is doing for essays", ">\n\nThere are things called pencil and paper.", ">\n\nAs I said, this is the first line defense. However as I already commented to another user. I can simply hand copy ChatGPT output. Essentially not doing my own independent research, writing, coding, and studying.", ">\n\nWhy don't you consider that research? \nThe first source was the best. It's incredibly efficient research IMO.", ">\n\nThe idea of tool removal has always been flawed. From calculators to chat GPT and beyond. If your test is so flimsy that a simple tool invalidates it then the test is poorly built. Test shouldn't be simple busywork tasks, they should require thinking, problem solving, complex thought. If it's just a game of memorization that can be cheated by answers on a paper, you've built a bad test.\nover memorization (which is what our current school systems teach) is not only unhelpful, but also harmful. We live in an era of wikipedia being a reliable source, of vast access to tools both online and phsycial. We should be teaching kids they should do the work but with the help of those tools, not despite them.\nThe main issue with your argument is that based on what you've said, i can assume you think the current school system is a good one but so many studies have shown that at least here in the US, the school systems are some of the worst in the world. It's this memorize, ignore tools, singular focus mentality that plays such a big role.\nIf we were more creative with education, incorporating tool utilization into the learning process, we'd likely have a major improvement to our educational successes. I could go on about how the education system prefers certain kinds of students over others, and how many students are left behind simply because they don't learn like other kids and are therefore punished, but I won't. All I'll say is that more restrictions on how and what kids learn isn't going to help them learn more or better.\nand in 15 years when chat GPT is a part of daily life in every single company on the planet in some way or another (which I'm beyond certain it will be), kids who were taught how to properly utilize it will have just such a huge advantage in the workforce over those who weren't", ">\n\nRather than attempt to find ways to prevent new technology from interfering with existing pedagogy, shouldn't we review and revise pedagogy as new technology develops? \nIf a chat AI program can write these things, what is the point of having humans repeatedly do the same work? We don't expect people to use an abacus when doing math, or limit their research to what's in the library card catalogue, or require printed paper publications as essay resources; we adapted to the calculator, and to the internet and search engines. So too should we adapt to things like ChatGPT, not by trying to pretend it doesn't exist, but by finding ways to incorporate it into a more holistic approach to learning.\nRather than chain kids to an airgapped room on school grounds outside of school hours to do homework that's of dubious educational value in the first place, we should take this as an opportunity to refocus schooling on in-class engagement and direct instruction. ChatGPT and programs like it are showing us yet another thing we as humans can outsource to our technology, so why struggle to do things in a more difficult and inefficient way?", ">\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\nIn addition, AI is only as good as the data it is fed. You must still be able to do the work on your own to analyze when the AI is giving valid outputs (garbage in, garbage out). This is especially true, when AI runs the risks of being owned or operated by those with a specific agenda. Can you imagine the trouble that would result if people relied on AI to determine who to vote for, but someone was able to pay the operators to have the AI promote them?\nRelying on AI to do our work for us is a distillation of an appeal to authority fallacy on a large scale (if the AI says it, it must be true).", ">\n\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\n\nThis is something I worry about A LOT when it comes to AI. Our collective understanding of the subjects that we usually classify as \"the humanities\" is constantly evolving as we learn more, and especially as a more diverse set of people are allowed to study, research and put forth opinions and arguments.\nImagine if students were outsourcing all their history, psychology, sociology and philosophy homework to a chatbot with a 1950s understanding of those subjects.\nImagine doctors outsourcing psych patient diagnoses to a chatbot with the same understanding.\nOn an arguably less \"serious\" but still critically important moral and political topic, imagine if all/most videogame art was outsourced to an AI engine with a 1990s sensibility for female characters. Same for all kinds of representation and diversity.\nHow about politics and political science in general... ha!\nEtc, etc etc.\nIt is NOT the case that we already have discovered all the true answers to the big questions, and we can merely turn to a \"knowledge calculator\" like ChatGPT to spit out the truth.\nEven if AI can pretty accurately reflect the discourse of the day, as it is currently understood and accepted, our collective knowledge and culture will stagnate if we do not actively participate in developing it, and we will all pay the price for that.", ">\n\nThese are all moralistic arguments that ultimately don’t mean anything.", ">\n\nI would say they are more epistemic arguments, which do matter greatly in the context of education (which is what the op was referring to).", ">\n\nAre any of these things mentioned actually realistic concerns? Someone is going to train an AI bot to generate 90s female art characters with big tits?\nNo. Lol and even if someone did, who cares?", ">\n\nConsidering how many people believe obviously fake stories that have no supporting evidence (and in spite of contrary evidence), yes, I believe they are very real concerns.\nIf an AI says we should use Brawndo in farming because its got what plants crave (electrolytes), we should probably be able to justify it with reasoning beyond \"the AI says so.\"", ">\n\nWho is suggesting we do anything “just because an AI said so”? \nDo you read books and think everything in it is true “because the book says so”?", ">\n\nHow do you determine if what the book/ai said is false?\nYou would typically do it through a process of research and discovery.\nPeoples' ability to do research and discovery will be greatly diminished if we rely on AI to do those things for us (which is what the previous posters were suggesting).\nTherefore, reliance on AI will lead to us losing the ability to discern if the results of what the AI is saying is correct.", ">\n\nWhat? Lol that doesn’t make any sense at all. \nIt is not like if we use AI then all previous knowledge is simply forgotten or lost. It’s all still there.", ">\n\nForcing homework at school makes that \"not homework\", and this approach has never worked. You cant reject change, it never works. Every time there has been a game changing event, people adapted. Those who tried to reject change disappeared. Horse carriages disappeared from roads because something else replaced it. Some people supposedly rejected progress, but they are lying to themselves, they still use modern tech or services at some point.\nAnyway, the change is here, and it made essays irrelevant. Time to find another way to test people skills. \nGive it a little time though. ChatGPT costs a ginormous amount of money to run and will not stay free for long either.", ">\n\nIt's not just ChatGPT, the actual innovation is not the interface but lies in algorithms that can recreate natural language of similar quality with smaller data samples. There are also OpenSource datasets like ThePile, etc. so even if OpenAI moves to a paid model (and they will, quickly. You can already sign up to be first in line for the API), there will be other free providers.", ">\n\nHaving coded AIs, I disagree. ChatGPT is a regular trained AI. The novelty is the scale of the operation, and the fact there is a public API.\nNo one ever spent that much money on resources to run and train an AI publicly. I am pretty sure google has done something similar with user data sets to make their search engine and general ecosystem.\nI wish there was a way to have algorithms working with smaller data sets and produce similar results, but it kind of does not work that way.", ">\n\nThere are already tools to identify ChatGPT generated texts. Such tools will improve as another use of literally the same technology.\nJust as teachers submit essays for identifying plagiarism, teachers will submit essays for identifying AI-generated text. \nFurther, a focus could change from grading students on what they know to grading students' ability to ask meaningful, content-based questions about the subject. After all, knowing facts isn't particularly valuable as a skill. Integrating facts and discovering valuable questions is still something that remains a uniquely human skill. And is where people will continue to add value as AI becomes more advanced.", ">\n\nStudents have always been able to 'cheat' on work done outside the classroom, by copying or somehow getting others to do their work for them, even before the internet. Yes with more advanced modern technology it is easier but this has always been a concern. \nAs regular learning environments like supervised classrooms are already 'quarantined' in the way you descibe you are fundementally just suggesting an increase in learning hours as a supplement to homework. This has been suggested by many for various reasons but it would overall cuase more issues than it fixes. It increases work load on teachers and administrators, stretching already thin educational budgets, and forces increased mental strain on children. It would limit their ability to do other recreational and out of ciriculum activities. This would be disruptive and controlling when the quantity of teaching and learning time that children recive is already considered sufficiant for a good education.", ">\n\nHell the only thing stopping me from using ChatGPT regularly for my work now is that it's always at capacity.", ">\n\nApply tests that are hand written, doesnt matter how a person obtains the knowledge, actually learning the subject is most important thing.", ">\n\nThere is no amount of ChatGPT that could influence a good old oral exam where the teacher evaluates the understanding via a little chat.", ">\n\nSo tired of this view. We shouldn’t be fighting technology. Teach kids to use the resources they have to find answers. It’s such a waste of 12 years of school, teaching kids to memorize facts and follow rules. \nInstead, every test should be open book and reward the best answers. Ask the kids to show their work or explain their thought process so we reward understanding of a topic rather than memorization of steps or text.", ">\n\n20 years ago, there were already homework communities and learn groups. Even from the publishers of school books and with free access to tutors. Ok, they didnt do the final homework for me, but gave me a great starting point.\nBeing the kid who transcribes a wiki page was already stupid back then when others could call you out:\nBut I guess the actual problem is lack of digital literacy with teachers, they're always 5-10 years behind.", ">\n\nIf you are testing skills that can be done by free tools on the internet, then you are testing irrelevant skills.\nThe best way to educate kids is to test for skills they need, not skills they objectively don't.\nI was able to witness a couple of universities adapt to tests during quarantine, and follow reports on how the new methods would be used going forward.\nThe results where thus:\nMass offline testing is incredibly cost efficient (one examiner per ~300 students), but the tests results are a poor indicator of real world performance.\nOne to One testing is incredibly expensive, but can, when done right, test actual understanding and performance.\nBoth will be useful, of course. Mass testing is most useful when used in a way that students aren't incentivized to cheat, such as when framed as practice.", ">\n\nOne of the upsides of needing to prevent this kind of tech from cheating assignments is that teachers should focus on having students be able to do their homework at school. (As a former teacher, we were trying to do this already- no more than 15 min of homework per class). \nI dont think we need to do quite what you say. We just need to limit outside electronics and have in-person classrooms or computer labs with programs designed to be AI-proof. \nI have ALWAYS believed that cell phones/internet watches should be stored in school lockers (at most) and never allowed anywhere else on campus during the school day. If anyone needs to contact the students they contact the desk who relays their message/other need. Many schools already do this.", ">\n\n∆\nI agree with this. It would help.", ">\n\nThank you!", ">\n\nThat is utterly pointless.\nThere is no reason to limit the available tools.\nThis just reminds me of the entire \"you won't have a calculator wherever you go\" argument.\nSchool should instead put a focus on responsibly using available tools.", ">\n\nAnd if students choose to use them irresponsibly, what should schools do?\nAnd can you please define what constitutes responsible use? Because despite knowing about plagiarism, people still copy and paste from the internet. Perfect abstinence is easier than perfect moderation after all.", ">\n\nJust return to hand written essays and have more oral exams.", ">\n\n∆l\nActually of all comments having oral exams compliments my post and I agree with you. Enjoy the delta.", ">\n\nIn a Faraday cage.", ">\n\nIf children can just generate work with ChatGPT, it simply shows that children are not being taught anything valuable. (Once ChatGPT responses can be generated in almost unlimited amounts at very low cost, it necessarily means those responses are of low value)\nInstead shouldn't we be teaching children to provide more valuable outcomes that ChatGPT can't replicate?", ">\n\nBeing able to do on your own what ChatGPT does with access to an immense amount of data and processing power is valuable. The actual writing isn't valuable, obviously, but it would be silly to expect it to be. It's just a side effect of practice, you spend time making things of little or no value to build up the skills you'll need to make something that actually matters. That's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\nI think you'd be hard pressed to teach a class of children to outperform ChatGPT in writing without ever asking them to write something that could also be done via AI. What would that even look like?", ">\n\n\nThat's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\n\nIt is a problem. That is why I hated math class until 2nd year of university.", ">\n\nDid you start discovering novel math results in your second year of university, or was that just the point at which you first encountered problems you found interesting, despite the fact that someone else had already solved them before? Thinking back the class you didn't hate, do you think it should be removed if someone can construct an AI to give all the answers you gave?", ">\n\nThis is only a method for evaluating students, it doesn't do anything to educate them.\nChatgpt is potentially a great tool for education but trying to find complex ways around it for homework is pointless. When testing fact retention is required using school/university computers with no web browsing makes sense. For any other test or situation it's a tool that might be used.", ">\n\nI understand OPs concern. That said, I do not think you can create true quarantine for a multitude of reasons. \nThe biggest one is probably time. I worked through high school and university. Because I lived in the middle of nowhere it was about a 30 min drive to high school and then an hour to uni. Having to stay at these quarantine zones to complete assignments would have been hell on my schedule, car, and wallet. \nYou said it yourself, if someone is going to cheat, they will cheat. If I had to do the work in a quarantine zone, what exactly stops me from doing the actual work on my computer at home, printing it all out, and then just writing that into the computer at the quarantine zone? Unless you want to try having students write an entire essay in their hour long class? There has to be a point where they go home and then this falls apart.", ">\n\nThere are already lots of ways to cheat in homework and mostly our steps to deal with that amount to the honour system, and by university level, automated plagiarism detection (which can be quite easily avoided). The point you \"won't argue\" that people will cheat if given the opportunity is probably the actual crux of what's wrong with your suggestion and the part that needs a big [citation needed]. Concluding that the majority of people are fundamentally dishonest is a big assumption to handwave away. \nIf you want an education, cheating is stupid. Ultimately you might get a paper qualification out of it but you'll have actually learned nothing - you won't hold up long against someone who has done it properly when you actually have to apply the skills. Or if you do, then the assignments weren't that crucial to the learning in the first place.", ">\n\nMany of the things I learned in school were largely irrelevant. I couldn't use a calculator to do long division. After I passed those early elementary school years I never did long division again. I wouldn't even argue learning the long division algo is mandatory. It's nice to have learnt it I guess, but I spent way too many hours on it. I can see learning fundamentals of essay writing, etc, are great, but why can't we just evolve to learn more effective things in life? ChatGPT should be used as a tool, not viewed as a detriment.", ">\n\nIt'd suggest that the best way to educate them is to embrace ChatGBT and teach them to use it well. Your method is a bit like teaching kids to do math without calculators or accounting without excel or financial software. There is some value, but it runs out very quickly and you're at a social and competetive disadvantage for taking some archane principled approach to education that is more of a defense of \"how we used to do it\".\nI'm old enough to remember when using a word processor was sometime forbidden for reasons of fairness - that seems entirely disconnected now from doing good work and it's almost hard to envision the thought process of those who thought everything should be hand written for students. \nIsn't the kid who is amazing at utilizing tools like ChatGBT going to do much better in the world than the one who does not? Your idea of \"proper education\" would easily regress back to needing to do all subjects scrawled in dirt with sticks and grunted in non-standardized language.", ">\n\nOR, chatgpt will be a great boon to the entire education system:\nIncreased accessibility: ChatGPT and other AI-powered systems can provide education to individuals who otherwise would not have access to it, due to geographical, financial, or other barriers.\n\nPersonalized learning: ChatGPT can provide personalized education experiences based on each student's strengths, weaknesses, and learning style.\n\n24/7 availability: ChatGPT can operate 24/7, providing students with access to education at any time, anywhere, which can be especially beneficial for those with demanding schedules or for individuals in remote areas.\n\nScalability: ChatGPT can provide education to a large number of students simultaneously, which could help to address the shortage of teachers and resources in some areas.\n\nCost-effectiveness: ChatGPT can be a more cost-effective option for providing education compared to traditional methods, as it does not require physical classrooms or teachers.\n\nImproved student engagement: ChatGPT can provide interactive, engaging learning experiences that can hold students' attention and foster deeper learning.\n\n--Source: ChatGPT", ">\n\nThere a lots of places where texts and exams are “open book”. The questions have to be written differently, and the point is that you’re not testing someone’s ability to memorize, but rather their ability to understand. This is a more difficult test to write, so in theory AI could force education to improve since everyone would a virtual tutor with them at all times.", ">\n\nI'm a teacher and I've been thinking a lot about this the last couple months. Changes within the education system/curriculum/syllabus/retraining of teachers will take far too long to keep up with the ease of access to, and success of, chatgpt and AI in general. \nThe only solution moving forward both short and long term is to embrace it, there is no stopping it now anyway and if we don't all want to be out of a job in 5 years we need to - \n- demonstrate feasible/moral/ethical use of such tools\n- create more opportunities for collaborative learning/hands-on/problem solving tasks and ones that increase communication skills between peers. \nHow this applies to each individual, specific task will vary and must require a lot of creativity and trial and error, but I think relying too heavily on your department of education to handle this (or most 'boots on the ground' problems) will ultimately only degrade a students experience and ability for learning.", ">\n\nI'm with you on what you're trying to accomplish. I just don't know that it's the \"best\" way. \nFor instance, how is homework performed in school superior to trusting the kids to learn the material, which would then be tested by oral exam? And yes, I do believe that asking a student to verbally explain a topic is a really good way to gauge mastery.", ">\n\nThere is not a hope in hell that we'll go back to hand written stuff. That's not how technology works. As the music companies. There are better ways to show you know a subject, for sure, than the current out of-date ones. That's for sure. Have you ever taken an on-line exam?", ">\n\nI argue to let them use chatGPT as it will be their future. This is similar to my generations \"you'll never walk around with a calculator so learn math.\" The future children will grow into a society where work means utilizing AI tech to help them thrive. If chatGPT helps them write an essay, and it's good, it means they're using resources. I agree, however, that we should supplement this with actual reading and writing.", ">\n\nI would argue that most of time that ChatGPT and similar technologies is going to be an issue is in 8-12 grade and college.\nThis technology is not going away, and it's only going to improve. Personally I would treat it like calculators, audio books and spell check.\nTech kids how to use the technology properly. Sure it's somewhat handy to calculate numbers in your head, but having the ability to do math in your head does not give you much of an advantage in today's world and not being able to doesn't hurt you much. But it's still critical to know formulas and how to peace together algebraic statements and word problems. \nKnowing how to spell properly is less important than knowing proper word usage - most times you're writing something it can be spell-checked in real time. Sure it's \"terrible that today's kids...\" don't know how to spell... but it's not going to affect their career. \nEnter ChatGPT - same thing. Should I spend the time to write a white paper on the changing advertising landscape to alert my boss about the a potential seismic shift in advertising revenue, or should I ask ChatGPT to write it? As a user I have to understand its limits and potential copywrite issues, but even more importantly how to verify that what it writes is correct and targeting the right audience. Is data from before 2020 going to be recent and accurate enough for my thesis? How do I supplement the discussion with real-world data? \nThis is our new reality. We should be learning how to use the tools properly, not trying to figure out to lock it down (which frankly makes as much sense as locking down the use of calculators or spell check).", ">\n\nI think there are already apps in place that are able to detect AI generated text (Read this article).\nAlso, I think a better method would be to simply have a database of ChatGPT (could be encrypted) generated text and make it available to already existing software that is use to detect plagiarism (this is just an exemple amongst many)", ">\n\nFrankly I don’t think high schoolers and below should be given homework or tests at all. One learns magnitudes better through exploration as opposed to mindless repetition. Engage with these kids intellectually, make them free thinking Athenians, not bags of knowledge of which they have no idea how to use.\nDoes it not surprise anyone that we train people for over a decade in intellect yet hardly have any intellectuals?", ">\n\nI would argue that society would be better off spending resources on teaching children how to use this tool effectively. Knowing how to get the right answer is what matters in this world.", ">\n\nThen answer this: Well why learn math at all? Seriously.\nWhy learn he concept of subtraction let alone division? I could and society has argued that with the advent of digital calculators. \nYet we learn it. \nLater we use calculators to take the mundane and already known processes to the next level. We abstract away the mundane. \nAs a EE having worked and am working on products you may be using right now to read this, when I develop new silicon and chips I don’t break out Karnaugh maps and lay down circuit using a T square and stencils of gates. But I sure the hell know what I’m doing and expect the tools to do for me. \nTeaching fundamentals of reading, writing, arithmetic, essays, research are just that fundamental.", ">\n\nI’d argue that the vast majority don’t need anything beyond basic math anyways. \nGo ask the average adult if they know the quadratic equation and what it means and you’d probably be disappointed.", ">\n\nChatGPT is here to stay, you'd better advocate for teaching people how to make the most of it and use it wisely instead of pretending it doesn't exist.\nOne of my favourite teachers always told students to use the best tools there are.", ">\n\nI think it depends completely on the topic. In my field of study, it’s fairly easy to come up with term paper assignments that the bot would be useless for. \nLooking back at the paper I wrote last year, I don’t see how any current bot could have helped, as it isn’t able to read or summarize specific sources (yet?).\nAn example of the type of assignments we get is “Discuss the role of state capacity in x and x conflict in light of (specific research paper)‘s dimensions of state capacity - do your findings confirm the findings of (authors), why or why not?\nThis way of combining literature made it difficult even for me to be on top of it, as there were no sources that had attempted this exact combination - it has to be original. \nAlso, I find it’s the best way to learn, because you have to rely on your own judgement and there are no shortcuts, even asking the professor was unhelpful as he wasn’t too familiar with the details.", ">\n\nThis is not the best way.", ">\n\n\nThese homework rooms would have Internet connected computers for use but access to ChatGPT would be filtered and blocked.\n\nThis wouldn't be feasible, there's far too many roundabout ways to still access ChatGPT. Security measures like domain filtering are just unproductive games of whack-a-mole. \nEdit: removed all the other stuff I wrote, as those points have already been mentioned in previous top-level comments.", ">\n\nHomework shouldn’t be the go-to method of “education” to begin with. Imo Universities should focus on the integral part of education: the lectures. Tools like chatgpt can help student who are actually interested in a subject to learn more easily about it, but whether students actually learn anything or not from a class won’t change regardless of if work is authentic or copied from an AI\nSource: I’m a college student and have had experience in both supervised environments where we had to do work without the use of computers/phones and solely-online environments where many students cheated", ">\n\nWhile this could work, it is not necessarily the best way in terms of accessibility and of learning in general. \nFirst, students with ADHD and certain other conditions may not necessarily be the able to be productive at all times, or at the specific time they have to work on those computers, especially if those computers are not in an environment ideal to that specific person. It would also not be very feasible to give students enough time on these computers to complete the bigger assignments and essays. \nSecond, while ChatGPT is quite advanced, it simply works by looking at language patterns and often gets factual details incorrect. For example, with bigger coding problems, it tries to import modules that do not exist or call on functions that it has not defined. In literature, it cannot analyze texts on much more than a surface level. I will admit it can use secondary sources for textual analysis, however, it is unable to come up with a clear thesis on its own. \nAdditionally, take-home tests can be just as easily cheated on using a normal Google search, and usually test thinking skills rather than understanding and knowledge. \nFinally, essay-writing and other types of assignments are generally not ideal for learning as they are only one type of skill, and university professors are recognizing this. Not only do they not work for all learning styles, but they are only used so commonly because of tradition. University professors are structuring assignments around ways that are innovative enough that ChatGPT is unable to work on them. Along with requiring specific readings which the AI might not have access to, and citing of all sources (which has always been a requirement that the AI might trip up on), they are also going away from the traditional essay format into others. For example, I am studying literature, a relatively essay-heavy field, and in my past few courses I have been asked to analyze comics (which the AI cannot read), edit other people’s essays and articles (from past courses), create a mock syllabus or lesson plan with justifications for each reading, and create annotated bibliographies as a stepping stone to an essay. All of these not only require different skills and encourage different types of learning and research but are quite difficult for an AI to do. \nAll in all, while your suggestion is great, the very nature of the AI and the fact that it exists at all is perhaps a sign that the best course of action is to rework the way we think about evaluation. After all, if an evaluation is such that an AI can complete it without the ability to actually think (it works by using observed language patterns), then perhaps the evaluation is not ideal.", ">\n\nI bet teachers and people thought the same thing about calculators when they came out or 1990s internet. AI bots like chat GPT are just a tool.", ">\n\nAll this effectively does is train kids to accomplish goals of a type that do not exist in the real world in a situation they will never realistically encounter. A better goal is adjusting testing criteria to account for this.\nThere might be very specific sets of knowledge for which rote memorization is appropriate, and for those, the air gapped testing may be appropriate. But I believe those are the exception rather than the rule. By and large, teaching kids to effectively utilize the tools that will be available to them is what we should be doing.", ">\n\nImagine learning where the only books are hand written.\nThe printing press took out a huge amount of repetitive labor in the learning process.\nAI/ChatGPT stands a good chance of removing a huge amount knowledge labor which stands between an idea and the end product. Learning to use the AI to best effect the Idea->End Product Chain is more important than worrying about memorizing formulae we will likely never need to remember. \nThe effort to restrict ChatGPT is just education system worrying about their Cheese Being Moved.", ">\n\nThis just doesn't make any sense to me. You're arguing that we shouldn't allow students to use tools they would have at their disposal in a real working environment, and for what? Why wouldn't you want students to use every tool at their disposal? How exactly is handicapping them helping them to understand the coursework?\nA much better approach would be to fundamentally alter how we teach to better prepare them for the workforce. Encouraging collaboration and creative problem solving skills is much more practical and effective.", ">\n\nChatGPT may pass the Bar, but I highly doubt it will replace lawyers or other professionals. \nThe whole point of credentialing is to drive accountability. Anyone can study the law and cite precedent without a law degree. Actually representing a client in a court of law requires oversight and knowledge. ChatGPT isn't perfect - it will make mistakes from time to time. So who is responsible when it makes a mistake? When is a client (who is not familiar with the law) supposed to know that a mistake has been made on their behalf? For this reason, until ChatGPT is literally perfect you're always going to need a credentialed professional to review the output.\nFor the record, I think ChatGPT is wonderful. But it's a tool that people will use, not a full-fledged replacement for professionals. My employer (a Fortune 500 company) has already rejected its use for internal projects. IT has the website blocked.", ">\n\nThe kids that are educated without its use will fall behind in business when faced with kids that are using it to its fullest extent.\nYou've successfully made an argument for people to succeed in a test that is worthless in the real world. Its parameters don't match.", ">\n\nThe best way to educate children is to teach them skills and strategies that will actually serve them in the workplace of the future. \nChatGPT already has reached the point of replacing humans (See Buzzfeed news). If ChatGPT can take the test or do the homework then what value is that education going to be to these students? Especially older students will quickly see rote memorization as a waste of time and so yes they probably will cheat if they have the opportunity. Trying to force these things to be “learned” and prove that knowledge by brute force banning things is going to be a costly uphill battle.", ">\n\nWhat if we modify how essays are written by students, by asking them to include citations (which is something ChatGPT can’t do)?\nWe can’t stop new tools from making old methods obsolete. But we can focus on enhancing critical thinking of students in a stepwise manner. When a new tool is created, think about how you can adapt rather than resist it.", ">\n\nWhy not just train an ai to spot ai written papers?", ">\n\nWhat about gradually putting more emphasis on oral assignments?", ">\n\nEverything you said makes perfect sense...IF the goal was to teach children simply how to write the perfect standard essay. But that is a very limited way of viewing education and what its real goal is. The real goal of education is to teach children how to think. To come up with the right questions, not just the right answers. In a world where a \"good enough\" essay on literally anything can be conjured as if by magic by a machine, what's the actual value of that exercise now? For a very long time teachers have used the essay as a way to evaluate how a person thinks. Now that a machine can write it for you, we need new ways to evaluate how students think. That's the real task we are facing. Fuck the essay, just like we ditched the slide rule for calculators and later computers, etc. Tools change but the real game remains the same: Think for yourself!", ">\n\nI'd say the best way would be to accept the reality of changing technology and reevaluating the approach we have towards education as a whole.\nGranted, I'd say that's only one half of the picture: reassessing how we conceive if jobs and labour in the face of increasing automation goes along with that, and I think neither really works without the other.\nBottom line is that human labour is more and more obsolete as time goes on, so human jobs will be less and less in demand (I'd argue moving away from a capitalistic system is the right call, but even if you don't, automation is still an incentive).\nSince a large part of the incentive of our current education system is \"prepare you for a job\" I think the whole thing is going to fall short in light of these kinds of systems developing.\nTheres lots of people now who pursue knowledge as a project of passion, rather than a means to an end, and I think moving to a system that supports and encourages that kind of ambition is the way to go.", ">\n\nI disagree. We should learn to use the tools we have efficiently. Otherwise you are not learning for your career but for some professors ego", ">\n\nThat’s not “education in the era of ChatGPT.” That’s education in the era before ChatGPT while we figure out what the world with ChatGPT will look like so we have some idea of what to do with it.\nThat’s also not “educating,” that’s just “assessment.” Assessment is simply a measuring system for education. As long as you think of the acquisition of knowledge and skill as requiring knowledge regurgitation and skill performance in isolation and divorced from context/individualized, then you’re going to end up at necessitating a kind of geofenced, Luddite assessment model. The training itself predicates the assessment method. How we assess is defined by how we teach, and vice versa.\nThe best assessment method to gauge understanding is, and always has been, conversation.\nAll we need to do is pair assessment with regular conversation between qualified teacher and student to determine if personal comprehension is present. Not an interview, not an interrogation — conversation. Problem solving performance contexts are also great revealer of internalized knowledge and skill.\nChatGPT is a relative nonissue if your approach to assessment is at all human.\nIt’s only a problem when you’re trying to mechanize and dehumanized education. “Rigorous” does not mean “mechanical.” We are going to have to trust the professional, knowledge- and skill-assessing judgements of humans who already know and can do.\nEducation reverts to having more emphasis on apprenticeship and mentorship models, where the relationship itself is part of the learning process. \n(The “accountability!” cranks are gonna love that…)", ">\n\nI have a strong suspicion that discussions like this, while very interesting, will be obsolete long before any changes can actually be implemented in schools. In fact, I'm pretty sure schools will be gone entirely in the near future.\nAs of right now, you can be taught almost any subject by an exceptionally well-spoken, fast and infinitely patient teacher called GPT to a university level, if not higher. Try it right now - go ask GPT to explain the political situation that allowed Alexander the Great to conquer Persia, or ask it to explain the raytracing algorithm. If there's a part you don't understand, ask it to clarify. You'll be amazed how accessible it makes advanced topics.\nNow, how long before we have VR software with a realistic-looking AI teacher, with an AI-generated voice, who can do the same thing, but respond to students' voices and use body language and visual demonstrations? Five years?\nHow long after that before this tech is cheap, and of such high quality that sending your kids to school will be a worse education?\nNow in, say, 20 years, we could have an AI system that takes a DNA sample, analyses a students genotype to understand what subjects they will be naturally good at, what education approaches will be most successful, and continuously improves its model of the student's behavior by observing them. It crafts a decades-long education journey tailored to the individual, and accompanies them the entire way.\nTeachers, as far as they've existed so far, don't have a chance.", ">\n\nAre you trying to test someone or teach them?\nIf the latter, why do you care about cheating? This reminds me of the ol' teachers who used to restrict calculators because \"you won't always have a calculator with you.\"", ">\n\nYou forget that for 99% of homework students could just copy each other's work. Having the answers out in the world accessible is not a new problem. You just make homework a small part of the grades and you make sure students understand it's important to actually do it or they won't do well on the tests.", ">\n\nThere are so many people that can’t do the basic math examples you mentioned somewhere and they went to school at a time when there were no calculators.\nOn the other hand I was allowed to use calculators in school pretty much the moment I left elementary school and I am really quite good at math even without assistance.\nTool usage is one of humanities key features and trying to work against it instead of finding ways to incorporate new technology into school and life seems backwards.", ">\n\nIronically the teacher will have to use an AI to decipher the \"hand written\" assignments.", ">\n\nYou can't force people to learn.", ">\n\nWhat about teaching how to think rather than how to memorize? Just a thought 💭", ">\n\nThey need to get rid of homework, and have students do their work while they're at school. It's awful, they just pile it on, even if a class only has a little homework that day, there's like 6 or 7 classes so it's a nightmare for students. Seems like the only way to prevent cheating is have them do work in class, so I hope for the students sake, they do that.", ">\n\nI’ll throw my idea into the ring, though we’re still a few years off from this technology:\nWe should have students interact with AI tutors that can prompt them questions and point out details. Then they can collaborate on assignments, and the AI tutor can give feedback and suggest snippets. The AI can evaluate their work and their engagement with the material.", ">\n\nOne of Transformers main applications is in search. Ie you get a set of embeddings you can compare the pairwise distances between embedding and get a list of scores that tell you which embeddings are most similar to the input. \nEssentially tools like google are made to reduce the search space for a given query collect likely links and then rerank the most likely results. \nChatgpt basically does this in a more direct way of searching through a space of potential responses. Basically trained on a task to predict next token given the previous tokens or fill in a mask\nTransformers permeate everything students use from the recommendation algorithms on TikTok Facebook, YouTube to search systems in google. \nIn my opinion students should absolutely not be taught to fear these tools tho I do agree they be tested in constrained environments to challenge them. Current systems should not be used to learn unless you have a clear understanding and are willing to check every word and check your reasoning. Future systems will be much better though so this problem isn’t going anywhere. \nIf anything there should be a push to make these ideas more interpretable to a younger audience and give them the tools to navigate an increasingly complex market of ideas. They should be aware of the limitations and how when they use a piece of software their actions and the actions of those around them are influencing what they see next. \nIt should be used and taught with rigor. \nIt’s programming 2.0", ">\n\nDude no; \nChatGPT is the computer. \nDo you want to be the education system that banned the computer and then wondered why all the other education systems output modern tech workers, while your education system kept outputting chimney sweeps and car factory workers?", ">\n\nHW only exists to make students practice, and generally is worth less than 20% of the grade in a class. If a student chooses to use chat GPT to bypass it then that’s the student’s loss.\nUltimately exams are what schools use to evaluate a students knowledge and I don’t think that’s going to change anytime soon", ">\n\nThere are already programs that check if something was written by an AI or not. Also no student I know actually uses chatGPT for major assignments because chatGPT doesn’t know every text to ever be published so it doesn’t understand the context, and most of the time will just bullshit an answer that’s incorrect.\nEveryone I know that uses chatGPT for school do so for either for assignments so small and simple that it doesn’t make sense to quarantine, or they use it as a more advanced google that can answer questions more accurately than a search engine could, essentially just saving time.\n(most) students are using chatGPT largely as a productivity and time management tool rather than to cheat.", ">\n\nThis is like saying “in the age of calculators, the only way to ensure kids learn maths is to ban calculators in school”. If looked at correctly, chatgpt is an effect multiplier, learning just has to be rejigged to have kids learn to do things that they can’t simply ask chatgpt to do for them.", ">\n\nLess course work and more exams is the future in a world with chatGPT.", ">\n\nChatGPT will be a big no issue soon. I work in a research field and this was something we worried about last year. As of now there are multiple tools and even more being developed that catch the use of ChatGPT. There has been research published that list ChatGPT as a co-author, but for most research, and use by students, it will simply be forbidden and will easily be caught as well. The program does well but it has a particular style that can be caught. Again it will be a non-issue soon." ]
> Let me ask you this. If ChatGPT could complete a students whole assignment, what would that student have learned from doing that assignment on their own that won’t simply be replaced with ChatGPT by a employer in the future? Even if ChatGPT doesn’t replace workers for a decade, why teach students skills that will inevitably be replaced and leave said students jobless in a decade? ChatGPT won’t only be used in the workforce either. Linus Tech Tips has a video showing how ChatGPT can help people learn new skills and do troubleshooting on their own. If I remember correctly, he manages to completely build a pc by only strictly following what ChatGPT tells him to. It even managed to suggest the best parts for that computers specific use case. It was nowhere near perfect, but in the future it will get there. Since ChatGPT is such a useful tool in the workforce and at home, I think it’s crucial we teach students how to use it instead of banning them from it. Maybe students should be given a problem and tasked to use ChatGPT to find the solution or have students attempt to learn a new topic with ChatGPT. I’m not a teacher, I just thought of those examples of the top of my head. I’m sure qualified teachers could think of better assignments than me. I could see ChatGPT helping a mechanic diagnose an issue so the mechanic could spend more time fixing the problem rather than diagnosing and I can think of a few examples in other jobs as well where ChatGPT will help a worker be more efficient and save more time. I think, if anything, we’re setting students up for failure by not teaching them about these tools that will take over the workforce and help in everyday life.	[ "/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^\| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.", ">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?", ">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.", ">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?", ">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.", ">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?", ">\n\nYou mean a grade?", ">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication", ">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.", ">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)", ">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.", ">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.", ">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.", ">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.", ">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?", ">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.", ">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.", ">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.", ">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.", ">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.", ">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.", ">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.", ">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.", ">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.", ">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.", ">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.", ">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.", ">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.", ">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use", ">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.", ">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.", ">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.", ">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.", ">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.", ">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.", ">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.", ">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).", ">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.", ">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.", ">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.", ">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.", ">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.", ">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.", ">\n\n\nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \n\nWhy? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it. \n\nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \n\nWhy? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? \nLet's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project. \n\nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.\n\nTotally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator.", ">\n\nFor the most part, knowledge workers perform a given amount of work in a given amount of hours, and the number of them hired by a company is TotalHoursNeeded/NumHoursPerEmployee. E.g. if you have 100 manyears of work to get done in a typical year, you employ 100 people.\nChat GPT isn't going to \"replace\" people wholesale, because as you say someone still needs to supervise it. But it looks to be on track to increase the productivity of programmers (can write a first draft of code and finds many of the bugs instantly). \nSame for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones. \nSo now the TotalNeeded is decreased by some percentage, let's say 10% to start. Now you only need 90 human programmers to do that same work. With 25% efficiency gain, you need 75. With 50%, 50. Etc. \nOr take translation jobs. Today, an editor spends roughly 3 minutes per word editing machine translated text, and 1 minute per word editing human-translated text. As long as editors are more expensive per hour than first translation people, it still makes sense much of the time to hire translators, because the software isn't free. \nBut the graph of machine translation \"efficiency\" is trending towards taking the same amount of time to edit as a human translator. As soon as that's hit, there's literally no reason to hire human translators, only editors. \nAnd if the editing time goes down to 30 seconds/word because of further AI assistance to the editor, you only need half as many of those.", ">\n\nThere is currently two better solutions being worked on - one of which is already being used to some degree. \nThe first is ChatGPT developers themselves making moves to make AI written works to be identified by \"watermark\" or similar. I don't thi k this one has taken effect at all yet. \nAnother is by a separate dev team that allows teachers to use software to determine the amount of an essay, for example, that is written by AI what the likelihood of any one sentence or paragraph to have been written by AI. This allows the teachers to use discretion when determining if the student used the AI in a way that they find acceptable or not. This way instead kf running from the scary AI educators can actually utilize tyhe AI with students to help them develop their writing and other communications.", ">\n\nWhat about kids with transportation issues? When I was in school I knew kids that drove almost an hour each way to get there. I certainly couldn’t have asked my parents to drop everything to take me all the way to school so I could do my homework if I forgot. Bus schedules? Do you think schools want to waste more money by burning more gas for extra routes? I understand where you’re coming from, but for a fair amount of children—especially in poorer, more rural areas—that getting to school and back is such a delicate balancing act that such a thing would just punish them.", ">\n\nI've seen a few key things from academics testing out ChatGPT (I have not signed up myself):\n\nIt tends to produce confident, convincing nonsense. It doesn't actually understand what it's writing about, and I hear it shows.\nIt makes up citations. Real authors in the field, real journals... but made-up titles. Things like that, since, again, it doesn't actually understand citations.\n\nThis suggests that, for assignments requiring the demonstration of genuine, in-depth understanding, and not merely the ability to summarize facts, ChatGPT will fail.\nA similar example that you bring up in the comments is programming cheat sheets into calculators - but for well-designed engineering exams (including the licensure exams, at least in the US), cheat sheets are fine and often either allowed or provided. A well-designed exam tests the ability to apply principles, not knowledge of equations, so a cheat sheet is harmless, or even allows the exam to work better (since people aren't distracted with memorizing equations).", ">\n\nThere are three criticisms that I have of this approach. \n\n\nShould we not teach to the environment that we live in? Yes, education often imposes arbitrary constraints like time tests but for research and reports why not let people use and work around all resources? If you can work around chat gpt to work efficiently, then do it. You learn what it can and can’t do and how to use it effectively as a tool. \n\n\nCan chatGPT on it’s own actually write a good essay? From what I have seen it can pull together a few sources. It can generally write fluff based on other things that it has seen. But it struggles to write analysis. It can’t interrogate a source or make value judgements. It could be useful for doing some filler or providing ideas but if to do an actual report, I think it would be insufficient. \n\n\nAn assignment that can be done using chatgpt is probably boring. Here I am writing an essay for no reason other than I find it interesting to discuss this topic. Perhaps, we arent giving students interesting enough assignments or we are overloading them to the point that they don’t have the time to engage? If chatGPT turns out to be an issue maybe it’s more of an indictment of the structures and norms of education.", ">\n\n\n\nhomework in the form of essays, take home tests, coding assignments, would be completed on school grounds. \n\n\nCongratulations, you've invented the \"cram school\".\nI'd recommend reading through your post again and actually thinking about the things you've said. Because essentially, you're merely advocating for the wholesale elimination of homework and for education outside of that to remain totally unchanged. It's almost literally, \"Make the school day 30% longer\".\nMy solution to the \"problem\" of students potentially using ChatGPT to cheat on homework: I don't think you need a hilariously convoluted system of homework \"boiler rooms\" redolent of national security apparatus, that requires schools to adopt ruinously expensive and disruptive technological and administrative changes.\nIt would be sufficient if we institute a system whereby teachers are encouraged to, let's say... \"test\" their students, whether by regular written exams or by talking to them in what I'll call \"classes\", to ensure they understand the material they've been assigned to learn.\nThis method ensures that students cannot use AI homework bots to coast through classes (since they'll literally be found out the very next class), and has the added benefit of not adding three hours to every teacher's day.", ">\n\nWhat about pen and ink?", ">\n\narguably I can just copy a ChatGPT output by hand. So I think that is a first level measure, but not a complete solution.", ">\n\nIt's a better solution than prison just because the curriculum can't keep up with technology.\nWhen calculators arrived on everyone's phone and everyone's pocket did you advocate for the same solution? Unlikely, so why only now with this system?", ">\n\nWell I did and I was. When I was studying engineering in the 80s we routinely could not arrive at exams with a calculator. Even then calculators were programmable enough to allow students to write cheat sheets in calculator memory.\nIt forced us to memorize equations, principals of engineering, and independent thinking. I’m a better engineer because I did.", ">\n\nSo you're what, almost 60? And you think what's best for children is to be like you? Don't you think you may be a bit out of touch?\nAlso, your view was about K12 students, not engineering students.", ">\n\nNo. As I replied, leaning on tools as a crutch all your life will limit your ability and function as a human. For example, you could argue that basic math isn’t necessary. As matter of fact that was an argument years ago with the advent of calculators.\nHowever, humans should be able to exist and functions without a digital crutch. You should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator. You should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google. There are basic elements of duration necessary since we are all still wet grey matter.", ">\n\n\nYou should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator\n\nBut why?\n\nYou should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google\n\nAgain, why?\nWhere do you get your \"should\" from?\nI have basically all human knowledge in my hand, every equation or conversion I'll ever need day to day, even every language I'll likely ever encounter. Why shouldn't I leave my brain free to think about what it wants and to use my incredible resource as and when it's needed?\nDo you envision some Saw-like situation where you're locked to a wall and need to solve maths equations at pain of death?", ">\n\nThe less you use your brain the less likely your body is to maintain it. Our body functions through a use or lose it principle. Just look people who lose movement function/muscle just by being bedridden for a long time. Our brain is not different.\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.", ">\n\nIs wasting resources on process you can deletage outside not using your brain? You free up that space to put to what you decide is important.\n\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.\n\nThe weakest man with a gun can take out the strongest bodybuilder.", ">\n\nAnd if you decide Tik tok and Netflix are important? How do you think that will affect the cognitive ability of kids?\nI didn't mention strength nor physical strength. And even then the strongest man with a gun will probably take out the weakest man with a gun.(An actual fair comparison)", ">\n\nCouldn't chatgpt (or somesuch AI) be asked \"Hey - did you write this?\" and nip this sort of thing in the bud?", ">\n\nNo, Chat GPT doesn't remember everything it's said, the potential things it could say are huge and even if someone wrote something that Chat GPT might say, it could be a coincidence.", ">\n\nWell, strike that idea then.\nStill though - there must be some way to use AI to deal with this. \"set a thief to catch a thief\" and all that.", ">\n\nChat GPT (and most generative AIs) use GANs to generate content. \nIn laymen's terms (and extremely simplified as it's above my level of understanding) a GAN is 2 AI systems competing against each other, a creator AI that creates content and a checker AI that decides if the content was genuine or made by the other AI. \nSo any automated way to tell if it's AI generated can be built into the checker AI in future versions and the creator AI will learn to avoid whichever features the checker AI is spotting.", ">\n\nChatGPT is just another mechanism for reducing the need for labor, and it's not going away. \nChildren will need to be educated in both how to make effective use of it (for as long as it's not sufficient to completely eliminate mental labor), and also in the ethics of not using it. Always forcing them to write in airgapped places isn't going to do that, it just makes them resent it. \nAlso: essay writing on a scale needed to really learn long-form writing is not very amenable to doing in an airgapped classroom, because honestly we're not using dead-tree sources of information anymore already, so doing their research pretty much has to include doing it on line. \nBut really: laborious manual long-form essay writing is going to go the way of penmanship and looking things up in a library as an unneeded skill very quickly. We need children to adjust to that reality of the modern world rather than pretending it will go away. \nPeople are still needed (for now) to do the important part of writing essays without doing the laborious bit that ChatGPT automates anyway: deciding what to write, and editing it into a convincing and well-written form. \nForcing kids to spend a lot of time learning how to write the basic bulk part of essays is a lot like teaching them how to make buggy-whips in shop class: a pointless exercise. \nIt would be better to give them all prewritten ChatGPT essays and have them learn the limitations and capabilities.", ">\n\nIs ChatGPT really that much more effective than just grabbing things off Wikipedia? I was asking it things about elections and it was just Wikipedia from two years ago", ">\n\nThe answer is NEVER to limit technology. It’s to teach the new generation how to use that technology to achieve the same goal.\nIt’s pointless to ban computers and teach the memorization of dates in history class. It’s much more productive to teach online research skills so that if an individual needs to know the date of a particular moment in history, they can reliably Google it.\nChatGPT is the same. It renders writing essays as pointless, and it necessitates the teachers to adapt to new teaching styles, such as teaching the skills on how best to manipulate ChatGPT to return the information you need.", ">\n\nI was banned from using programming calculators when I studied engineering in the 80s during exams. It forced the students to all be on the same level playing field and forced us to actually know the equations, their applications, and the processes of whatever engineering course I was taking.\nIt made us better engineers.", ">\n\nHow does handicapping you make you a better engineer? If I put you and an engineer trained with technology in the same room together, who do you think would accomplish the task faster?", ">\n\nThe handicapped engineer, easily. The point of forcing students to actually learn the material is so that they understand how to reason about the underlying processes when they need to troubleshoot something going wrong, and understand the tradeoffs between approaches and how to select the best one for the task. \nOnce you understand things deeply you don't actually need training in doing things quickly because it's immediately intuitive how to apply a technological process to save time. The guy that leaned heavily on technology is basically fucked if he has to use a technique or software that he didn't specifically train on since he doesn't have a good foundation to abstract from. It would be more appropriate to call this person a technician.", ">\n\nThe purpose of calculators is to do the menial part of the work, not to solve whole processes. The engineer that learned with calculators likely knows how to select the right process to solve a problem, but uses the calculator to do the math faster and with fewer errors.", ">\n\nAt the college level, we’re not talking about tools to add and multiply. We’re talking about tools like Wolfram Alpha that do entire symbolic manipulations for you. If I took a calculus class and on all the assignments used Wolfram Alpha to find derivatives, do you think I would have learned anything?\nThat is what ChatGPT is doing for essays", ">\n\nThere are things called pencil and paper.", ">\n\nAs I said, this is the first line defense. However as I already commented to another user. I can simply hand copy ChatGPT output. Essentially not doing my own independent research, writing, coding, and studying.", ">\n\nWhy don't you consider that research? \nThe first source was the best. It's incredibly efficient research IMO.", ">\n\nThe idea of tool removal has always been flawed. From calculators to chat GPT and beyond. If your test is so flimsy that a simple tool invalidates it then the test is poorly built. Test shouldn't be simple busywork tasks, they should require thinking, problem solving, complex thought. If it's just a game of memorization that can be cheated by answers on a paper, you've built a bad test.\nover memorization (which is what our current school systems teach) is not only unhelpful, but also harmful. We live in an era of wikipedia being a reliable source, of vast access to tools both online and phsycial. We should be teaching kids they should do the work but with the help of those tools, not despite them.\nThe main issue with your argument is that based on what you've said, i can assume you think the current school system is a good one but so many studies have shown that at least here in the US, the school systems are some of the worst in the world. It's this memorize, ignore tools, singular focus mentality that plays such a big role.\nIf we were more creative with education, incorporating tool utilization into the learning process, we'd likely have a major improvement to our educational successes. I could go on about how the education system prefers certain kinds of students over others, and how many students are left behind simply because they don't learn like other kids and are therefore punished, but I won't. All I'll say is that more restrictions on how and what kids learn isn't going to help them learn more or better.\nand in 15 years when chat GPT is a part of daily life in every single company on the planet in some way or another (which I'm beyond certain it will be), kids who were taught how to properly utilize it will have just such a huge advantage in the workforce over those who weren't", ">\n\nRather than attempt to find ways to prevent new technology from interfering with existing pedagogy, shouldn't we review and revise pedagogy as new technology develops? \nIf a chat AI program can write these things, what is the point of having humans repeatedly do the same work? We don't expect people to use an abacus when doing math, or limit their research to what's in the library card catalogue, or require printed paper publications as essay resources; we adapted to the calculator, and to the internet and search engines. So too should we adapt to things like ChatGPT, not by trying to pretend it doesn't exist, but by finding ways to incorporate it into a more holistic approach to learning.\nRather than chain kids to an airgapped room on school grounds outside of school hours to do homework that's of dubious educational value in the first place, we should take this as an opportunity to refocus schooling on in-class engagement and direct instruction. ChatGPT and programs like it are showing us yet another thing we as humans can outsource to our technology, so why struggle to do things in a more difficult and inefficient way?", ">\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\nIn addition, AI is only as good as the data it is fed. You must still be able to do the work on your own to analyze when the AI is giving valid outputs (garbage in, garbage out). This is especially true, when AI runs the risks of being owned or operated by those with a specific agenda. Can you imagine the trouble that would result if people relied on AI to determine who to vote for, but someone was able to pay the operators to have the AI promote them?\nRelying on AI to do our work for us is a distillation of an appeal to authority fallacy on a large scale (if the AI says it, it must be true).", ">\n\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\n\nThis is something I worry about A LOT when it comes to AI. Our collective understanding of the subjects that we usually classify as \"the humanities\" is constantly evolving as we learn more, and especially as a more diverse set of people are allowed to study, research and put forth opinions and arguments.\nImagine if students were outsourcing all their history, psychology, sociology and philosophy homework to a chatbot with a 1950s understanding of those subjects.\nImagine doctors outsourcing psych patient diagnoses to a chatbot with the same understanding.\nOn an arguably less \"serious\" but still critically important moral and political topic, imagine if all/most videogame art was outsourced to an AI engine with a 1990s sensibility for female characters. Same for all kinds of representation and diversity.\nHow about politics and political science in general... ha!\nEtc, etc etc.\nIt is NOT the case that we already have discovered all the true answers to the big questions, and we can merely turn to a \"knowledge calculator\" like ChatGPT to spit out the truth.\nEven if AI can pretty accurately reflect the discourse of the day, as it is currently understood and accepted, our collective knowledge and culture will stagnate if we do not actively participate in developing it, and we will all pay the price for that.", ">\n\nThese are all moralistic arguments that ultimately don’t mean anything.", ">\n\nI would say they are more epistemic arguments, which do matter greatly in the context of education (which is what the op was referring to).", ">\n\nAre any of these things mentioned actually realistic concerns? Someone is going to train an AI bot to generate 90s female art characters with big tits?\nNo. Lol and even if someone did, who cares?", ">\n\nConsidering how many people believe obviously fake stories that have no supporting evidence (and in spite of contrary evidence), yes, I believe they are very real concerns.\nIf an AI says we should use Brawndo in farming because its got what plants crave (electrolytes), we should probably be able to justify it with reasoning beyond \"the AI says so.\"", ">\n\nWho is suggesting we do anything “just because an AI said so”? \nDo you read books and think everything in it is true “because the book says so”?", ">\n\nHow do you determine if what the book/ai said is false?\nYou would typically do it through a process of research and discovery.\nPeoples' ability to do research and discovery will be greatly diminished if we rely on AI to do those things for us (which is what the previous posters were suggesting).\nTherefore, reliance on AI will lead to us losing the ability to discern if the results of what the AI is saying is correct.", ">\n\nWhat? Lol that doesn’t make any sense at all. \nIt is not like if we use AI then all previous knowledge is simply forgotten or lost. It’s all still there.", ">\n\nForcing homework at school makes that \"not homework\", and this approach has never worked. You cant reject change, it never works. Every time there has been a game changing event, people adapted. Those who tried to reject change disappeared. Horse carriages disappeared from roads because something else replaced it. Some people supposedly rejected progress, but they are lying to themselves, they still use modern tech or services at some point.\nAnyway, the change is here, and it made essays irrelevant. Time to find another way to test people skills. \nGive it a little time though. ChatGPT costs a ginormous amount of money to run and will not stay free for long either.", ">\n\nIt's not just ChatGPT, the actual innovation is not the interface but lies in algorithms that can recreate natural language of similar quality with smaller data samples. There are also OpenSource datasets like ThePile, etc. so even if OpenAI moves to a paid model (and they will, quickly. You can already sign up to be first in line for the API), there will be other free providers.", ">\n\nHaving coded AIs, I disagree. ChatGPT is a regular trained AI. The novelty is the scale of the operation, and the fact there is a public API.\nNo one ever spent that much money on resources to run and train an AI publicly. I am pretty sure google has done something similar with user data sets to make their search engine and general ecosystem.\nI wish there was a way to have algorithms working with smaller data sets and produce similar results, but it kind of does not work that way.", ">\n\nThere are already tools to identify ChatGPT generated texts. Such tools will improve as another use of literally the same technology.\nJust as teachers submit essays for identifying plagiarism, teachers will submit essays for identifying AI-generated text. \nFurther, a focus could change from grading students on what they know to grading students' ability to ask meaningful, content-based questions about the subject. After all, knowing facts isn't particularly valuable as a skill. Integrating facts and discovering valuable questions is still something that remains a uniquely human skill. And is where people will continue to add value as AI becomes more advanced.", ">\n\nStudents have always been able to 'cheat' on work done outside the classroom, by copying or somehow getting others to do their work for them, even before the internet. Yes with more advanced modern technology it is easier but this has always been a concern. \nAs regular learning environments like supervised classrooms are already 'quarantined' in the way you descibe you are fundementally just suggesting an increase in learning hours as a supplement to homework. This has been suggested by many for various reasons but it would overall cuase more issues than it fixes. It increases work load on teachers and administrators, stretching already thin educational budgets, and forces increased mental strain on children. It would limit their ability to do other recreational and out of ciriculum activities. This would be disruptive and controlling when the quantity of teaching and learning time that children recive is already considered sufficiant for a good education.", ">\n\nHell the only thing stopping me from using ChatGPT regularly for my work now is that it's always at capacity.", ">\n\nApply tests that are hand written, doesnt matter how a person obtains the knowledge, actually learning the subject is most important thing.", ">\n\nThere is no amount of ChatGPT that could influence a good old oral exam where the teacher evaluates the understanding via a little chat.", ">\n\nSo tired of this view. We shouldn’t be fighting technology. Teach kids to use the resources they have to find answers. It’s such a waste of 12 years of school, teaching kids to memorize facts and follow rules. \nInstead, every test should be open book and reward the best answers. Ask the kids to show their work or explain their thought process so we reward understanding of a topic rather than memorization of steps or text.", ">\n\n20 years ago, there were already homework communities and learn groups. Even from the publishers of school books and with free access to tutors. Ok, they didnt do the final homework for me, but gave me a great starting point.\nBeing the kid who transcribes a wiki page was already stupid back then when others could call you out:\nBut I guess the actual problem is lack of digital literacy with teachers, they're always 5-10 years behind.", ">\n\nIf you are testing skills that can be done by free tools on the internet, then you are testing irrelevant skills.\nThe best way to educate kids is to test for skills they need, not skills they objectively don't.\nI was able to witness a couple of universities adapt to tests during quarantine, and follow reports on how the new methods would be used going forward.\nThe results where thus:\nMass offline testing is incredibly cost efficient (one examiner per ~300 students), but the tests results are a poor indicator of real world performance.\nOne to One testing is incredibly expensive, but can, when done right, test actual understanding and performance.\nBoth will be useful, of course. Mass testing is most useful when used in a way that students aren't incentivized to cheat, such as when framed as practice.", ">\n\nOne of the upsides of needing to prevent this kind of tech from cheating assignments is that teachers should focus on having students be able to do their homework at school. (As a former teacher, we were trying to do this already- no more than 15 min of homework per class). \nI dont think we need to do quite what you say. We just need to limit outside electronics and have in-person classrooms or computer labs with programs designed to be AI-proof. \nI have ALWAYS believed that cell phones/internet watches should be stored in school lockers (at most) and never allowed anywhere else on campus during the school day. If anyone needs to contact the students they contact the desk who relays their message/other need. Many schools already do this.", ">\n\n∆\nI agree with this. It would help.", ">\n\nThank you!", ">\n\nThat is utterly pointless.\nThere is no reason to limit the available tools.\nThis just reminds me of the entire \"you won't have a calculator wherever you go\" argument.\nSchool should instead put a focus on responsibly using available tools.", ">\n\nAnd if students choose to use them irresponsibly, what should schools do?\nAnd can you please define what constitutes responsible use? Because despite knowing about plagiarism, people still copy and paste from the internet. Perfect abstinence is easier than perfect moderation after all.", ">\n\nJust return to hand written essays and have more oral exams.", ">\n\n∆l\nActually of all comments having oral exams compliments my post and I agree with you. Enjoy the delta.", ">\n\nIn a Faraday cage.", ">\n\nIf children can just generate work with ChatGPT, it simply shows that children are not being taught anything valuable. (Once ChatGPT responses can be generated in almost unlimited amounts at very low cost, it necessarily means those responses are of low value)\nInstead shouldn't we be teaching children to provide more valuable outcomes that ChatGPT can't replicate?", ">\n\nBeing able to do on your own what ChatGPT does with access to an immense amount of data and processing power is valuable. The actual writing isn't valuable, obviously, but it would be silly to expect it to be. It's just a side effect of practice, you spend time making things of little or no value to build up the skills you'll need to make something that actually matters. That's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\nI think you'd be hard pressed to teach a class of children to outperform ChatGPT in writing without ever asking them to write something that could also be done via AI. What would that even look like?", ">\n\n\nThat's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\n\nIt is a problem. That is why I hated math class until 2nd year of university.", ">\n\nDid you start discovering novel math results in your second year of university, or was that just the point at which you first encountered problems you found interesting, despite the fact that someone else had already solved them before? Thinking back the class you didn't hate, do you think it should be removed if someone can construct an AI to give all the answers you gave?", ">\n\nThis is only a method for evaluating students, it doesn't do anything to educate them.\nChatgpt is potentially a great tool for education but trying to find complex ways around it for homework is pointless. When testing fact retention is required using school/university computers with no web browsing makes sense. For any other test or situation it's a tool that might be used.", ">\n\nI understand OPs concern. That said, I do not think you can create true quarantine for a multitude of reasons. \nThe biggest one is probably time. I worked through high school and university. Because I lived in the middle of nowhere it was about a 30 min drive to high school and then an hour to uni. Having to stay at these quarantine zones to complete assignments would have been hell on my schedule, car, and wallet. \nYou said it yourself, if someone is going to cheat, they will cheat. If I had to do the work in a quarantine zone, what exactly stops me from doing the actual work on my computer at home, printing it all out, and then just writing that into the computer at the quarantine zone? Unless you want to try having students write an entire essay in their hour long class? There has to be a point where they go home and then this falls apart.", ">\n\nThere are already lots of ways to cheat in homework and mostly our steps to deal with that amount to the honour system, and by university level, automated plagiarism detection (which can be quite easily avoided). The point you \"won't argue\" that people will cheat if given the opportunity is probably the actual crux of what's wrong with your suggestion and the part that needs a big [citation needed]. Concluding that the majority of people are fundamentally dishonest is a big assumption to handwave away. \nIf you want an education, cheating is stupid. Ultimately you might get a paper qualification out of it but you'll have actually learned nothing - you won't hold up long against someone who has done it properly when you actually have to apply the skills. Or if you do, then the assignments weren't that crucial to the learning in the first place.", ">\n\nMany of the things I learned in school were largely irrelevant. I couldn't use a calculator to do long division. After I passed those early elementary school years I never did long division again. I wouldn't even argue learning the long division algo is mandatory. It's nice to have learnt it I guess, but I spent way too many hours on it. I can see learning fundamentals of essay writing, etc, are great, but why can't we just evolve to learn more effective things in life? ChatGPT should be used as a tool, not viewed as a detriment.", ">\n\nIt'd suggest that the best way to educate them is to embrace ChatGBT and teach them to use it well. Your method is a bit like teaching kids to do math without calculators or accounting without excel or financial software. There is some value, but it runs out very quickly and you're at a social and competetive disadvantage for taking some archane principled approach to education that is more of a defense of \"how we used to do it\".\nI'm old enough to remember when using a word processor was sometime forbidden for reasons of fairness - that seems entirely disconnected now from doing good work and it's almost hard to envision the thought process of those who thought everything should be hand written for students. \nIsn't the kid who is amazing at utilizing tools like ChatGBT going to do much better in the world than the one who does not? Your idea of \"proper education\" would easily regress back to needing to do all subjects scrawled in dirt with sticks and grunted in non-standardized language.", ">\n\nOR, chatgpt will be a great boon to the entire education system:\nIncreased accessibility: ChatGPT and other AI-powered systems can provide education to individuals who otherwise would not have access to it, due to geographical, financial, or other barriers.\n\nPersonalized learning: ChatGPT can provide personalized education experiences based on each student's strengths, weaknesses, and learning style.\n\n24/7 availability: ChatGPT can operate 24/7, providing students with access to education at any time, anywhere, which can be especially beneficial for those with demanding schedules or for individuals in remote areas.\n\nScalability: ChatGPT can provide education to a large number of students simultaneously, which could help to address the shortage of teachers and resources in some areas.\n\nCost-effectiveness: ChatGPT can be a more cost-effective option for providing education compared to traditional methods, as it does not require physical classrooms or teachers.\n\nImproved student engagement: ChatGPT can provide interactive, engaging learning experiences that can hold students' attention and foster deeper learning.\n\n--Source: ChatGPT", ">\n\nThere a lots of places where texts and exams are “open book”. The questions have to be written differently, and the point is that you’re not testing someone’s ability to memorize, but rather their ability to understand. This is a more difficult test to write, so in theory AI could force education to improve since everyone would a virtual tutor with them at all times.", ">\n\nI'm a teacher and I've been thinking a lot about this the last couple months. Changes within the education system/curriculum/syllabus/retraining of teachers will take far too long to keep up with the ease of access to, and success of, chatgpt and AI in general. \nThe only solution moving forward both short and long term is to embrace it, there is no stopping it now anyway and if we don't all want to be out of a job in 5 years we need to - \n- demonstrate feasible/moral/ethical use of such tools\n- create more opportunities for collaborative learning/hands-on/problem solving tasks and ones that increase communication skills between peers. \nHow this applies to each individual, specific task will vary and must require a lot of creativity and trial and error, but I think relying too heavily on your department of education to handle this (or most 'boots on the ground' problems) will ultimately only degrade a students experience and ability for learning.", ">\n\nI'm with you on what you're trying to accomplish. I just don't know that it's the \"best\" way. \nFor instance, how is homework performed in school superior to trusting the kids to learn the material, which would then be tested by oral exam? And yes, I do believe that asking a student to verbally explain a topic is a really good way to gauge mastery.", ">\n\nThere is not a hope in hell that we'll go back to hand written stuff. That's not how technology works. As the music companies. There are better ways to show you know a subject, for sure, than the current out of-date ones. That's for sure. Have you ever taken an on-line exam?", ">\n\nI argue to let them use chatGPT as it will be their future. This is similar to my generations \"you'll never walk around with a calculator so learn math.\" The future children will grow into a society where work means utilizing AI tech to help them thrive. If chatGPT helps them write an essay, and it's good, it means they're using resources. I agree, however, that we should supplement this with actual reading and writing.", ">\n\nI would argue that most of time that ChatGPT and similar technologies is going to be an issue is in 8-12 grade and college.\nThis technology is not going away, and it's only going to improve. Personally I would treat it like calculators, audio books and spell check.\nTech kids how to use the technology properly. Sure it's somewhat handy to calculate numbers in your head, but having the ability to do math in your head does not give you much of an advantage in today's world and not being able to doesn't hurt you much. But it's still critical to know formulas and how to peace together algebraic statements and word problems. \nKnowing how to spell properly is less important than knowing proper word usage - most times you're writing something it can be spell-checked in real time. Sure it's \"terrible that today's kids...\" don't know how to spell... but it's not going to affect their career. \nEnter ChatGPT - same thing. Should I spend the time to write a white paper on the changing advertising landscape to alert my boss about the a potential seismic shift in advertising revenue, or should I ask ChatGPT to write it? As a user I have to understand its limits and potential copywrite issues, but even more importantly how to verify that what it writes is correct and targeting the right audience. Is data from before 2020 going to be recent and accurate enough for my thesis? How do I supplement the discussion with real-world data? \nThis is our new reality. We should be learning how to use the tools properly, not trying to figure out to lock it down (which frankly makes as much sense as locking down the use of calculators or spell check).", ">\n\nI think there are already apps in place that are able to detect AI generated text (Read this article).\nAlso, I think a better method would be to simply have a database of ChatGPT (could be encrypted) generated text and make it available to already existing software that is use to detect plagiarism (this is just an exemple amongst many)", ">\n\nFrankly I don’t think high schoolers and below should be given homework or tests at all. One learns magnitudes better through exploration as opposed to mindless repetition. Engage with these kids intellectually, make them free thinking Athenians, not bags of knowledge of which they have no idea how to use.\nDoes it not surprise anyone that we train people for over a decade in intellect yet hardly have any intellectuals?", ">\n\nI would argue that society would be better off spending resources on teaching children how to use this tool effectively. Knowing how to get the right answer is what matters in this world.", ">\n\nThen answer this: Well why learn math at all? Seriously.\nWhy learn he concept of subtraction let alone division? I could and society has argued that with the advent of digital calculators. \nYet we learn it. \nLater we use calculators to take the mundane and already known processes to the next level. We abstract away the mundane. \nAs a EE having worked and am working on products you may be using right now to read this, when I develop new silicon and chips I don’t break out Karnaugh maps and lay down circuit using a T square and stencils of gates. But I sure the hell know what I’m doing and expect the tools to do for me. \nTeaching fundamentals of reading, writing, arithmetic, essays, research are just that fundamental.", ">\n\nI’d argue that the vast majority don’t need anything beyond basic math anyways. \nGo ask the average adult if they know the quadratic equation and what it means and you’d probably be disappointed.", ">\n\nChatGPT is here to stay, you'd better advocate for teaching people how to make the most of it and use it wisely instead of pretending it doesn't exist.\nOne of my favourite teachers always told students to use the best tools there are.", ">\n\nI think it depends completely on the topic. In my field of study, it’s fairly easy to come up with term paper assignments that the bot would be useless for. \nLooking back at the paper I wrote last year, I don’t see how any current bot could have helped, as it isn’t able to read or summarize specific sources (yet?).\nAn example of the type of assignments we get is “Discuss the role of state capacity in x and x conflict in light of (specific research paper)‘s dimensions of state capacity - do your findings confirm the findings of (authors), why or why not?\nThis way of combining literature made it difficult even for me to be on top of it, as there were no sources that had attempted this exact combination - it has to be original. \nAlso, I find it’s the best way to learn, because you have to rely on your own judgement and there are no shortcuts, even asking the professor was unhelpful as he wasn’t too familiar with the details.", ">\n\nThis is not the best way.", ">\n\n\nThese homework rooms would have Internet connected computers for use but access to ChatGPT would be filtered and blocked.\n\nThis wouldn't be feasible, there's far too many roundabout ways to still access ChatGPT. Security measures like domain filtering are just unproductive games of whack-a-mole. \nEdit: removed all the other stuff I wrote, as those points have already been mentioned in previous top-level comments.", ">\n\nHomework shouldn’t be the go-to method of “education” to begin with. Imo Universities should focus on the integral part of education: the lectures. Tools like chatgpt can help student who are actually interested in a subject to learn more easily about it, but whether students actually learn anything or not from a class won’t change regardless of if work is authentic or copied from an AI\nSource: I’m a college student and have had experience in both supervised environments where we had to do work without the use of computers/phones and solely-online environments where many students cheated", ">\n\nWhile this could work, it is not necessarily the best way in terms of accessibility and of learning in general. \nFirst, students with ADHD and certain other conditions may not necessarily be the able to be productive at all times, or at the specific time they have to work on those computers, especially if those computers are not in an environment ideal to that specific person. It would also not be very feasible to give students enough time on these computers to complete the bigger assignments and essays. \nSecond, while ChatGPT is quite advanced, it simply works by looking at language patterns and often gets factual details incorrect. For example, with bigger coding problems, it tries to import modules that do not exist or call on functions that it has not defined. In literature, it cannot analyze texts on much more than a surface level. I will admit it can use secondary sources for textual analysis, however, it is unable to come up with a clear thesis on its own. \nAdditionally, take-home tests can be just as easily cheated on using a normal Google search, and usually test thinking skills rather than understanding and knowledge. \nFinally, essay-writing and other types of assignments are generally not ideal for learning as they are only one type of skill, and university professors are recognizing this. Not only do they not work for all learning styles, but they are only used so commonly because of tradition. University professors are structuring assignments around ways that are innovative enough that ChatGPT is unable to work on them. Along with requiring specific readings which the AI might not have access to, and citing of all sources (which has always been a requirement that the AI might trip up on), they are also going away from the traditional essay format into others. For example, I am studying literature, a relatively essay-heavy field, and in my past few courses I have been asked to analyze comics (which the AI cannot read), edit other people’s essays and articles (from past courses), create a mock syllabus or lesson plan with justifications for each reading, and create annotated bibliographies as a stepping stone to an essay. All of these not only require different skills and encourage different types of learning and research but are quite difficult for an AI to do. \nAll in all, while your suggestion is great, the very nature of the AI and the fact that it exists at all is perhaps a sign that the best course of action is to rework the way we think about evaluation. After all, if an evaluation is such that an AI can complete it without the ability to actually think (it works by using observed language patterns), then perhaps the evaluation is not ideal.", ">\n\nI bet teachers and people thought the same thing about calculators when they came out or 1990s internet. AI bots like chat GPT are just a tool.", ">\n\nAll this effectively does is train kids to accomplish goals of a type that do not exist in the real world in a situation they will never realistically encounter. A better goal is adjusting testing criteria to account for this.\nThere might be very specific sets of knowledge for which rote memorization is appropriate, and for those, the air gapped testing may be appropriate. But I believe those are the exception rather than the rule. By and large, teaching kids to effectively utilize the tools that will be available to them is what we should be doing.", ">\n\nImagine learning where the only books are hand written.\nThe printing press took out a huge amount of repetitive labor in the learning process.\nAI/ChatGPT stands a good chance of removing a huge amount knowledge labor which stands between an idea and the end product. Learning to use the AI to best effect the Idea->End Product Chain is more important than worrying about memorizing formulae we will likely never need to remember. \nThe effort to restrict ChatGPT is just education system worrying about their Cheese Being Moved.", ">\n\nThis just doesn't make any sense to me. You're arguing that we shouldn't allow students to use tools they would have at their disposal in a real working environment, and for what? Why wouldn't you want students to use every tool at their disposal? How exactly is handicapping them helping them to understand the coursework?\nA much better approach would be to fundamentally alter how we teach to better prepare them for the workforce. Encouraging collaboration and creative problem solving skills is much more practical and effective.", ">\n\nChatGPT may pass the Bar, but I highly doubt it will replace lawyers or other professionals. \nThe whole point of credentialing is to drive accountability. Anyone can study the law and cite precedent without a law degree. Actually representing a client in a court of law requires oversight and knowledge. ChatGPT isn't perfect - it will make mistakes from time to time. So who is responsible when it makes a mistake? When is a client (who is not familiar with the law) supposed to know that a mistake has been made on their behalf? For this reason, until ChatGPT is literally perfect you're always going to need a credentialed professional to review the output.\nFor the record, I think ChatGPT is wonderful. But it's a tool that people will use, not a full-fledged replacement for professionals. My employer (a Fortune 500 company) has already rejected its use for internal projects. IT has the website blocked.", ">\n\nThe kids that are educated without its use will fall behind in business when faced with kids that are using it to its fullest extent.\nYou've successfully made an argument for people to succeed in a test that is worthless in the real world. Its parameters don't match.", ">\n\nThe best way to educate children is to teach them skills and strategies that will actually serve them in the workplace of the future. \nChatGPT already has reached the point of replacing humans (See Buzzfeed news). If ChatGPT can take the test or do the homework then what value is that education going to be to these students? Especially older students will quickly see rote memorization as a waste of time and so yes they probably will cheat if they have the opportunity. Trying to force these things to be “learned” and prove that knowledge by brute force banning things is going to be a costly uphill battle.", ">\n\nWhat if we modify how essays are written by students, by asking them to include citations (which is something ChatGPT can’t do)?\nWe can’t stop new tools from making old methods obsolete. But we can focus on enhancing critical thinking of students in a stepwise manner. When a new tool is created, think about how you can adapt rather than resist it.", ">\n\nWhy not just train an ai to spot ai written papers?", ">\n\nWhat about gradually putting more emphasis on oral assignments?", ">\n\nEverything you said makes perfect sense...IF the goal was to teach children simply how to write the perfect standard essay. But that is a very limited way of viewing education and what its real goal is. The real goal of education is to teach children how to think. To come up with the right questions, not just the right answers. In a world where a \"good enough\" essay on literally anything can be conjured as if by magic by a machine, what's the actual value of that exercise now? For a very long time teachers have used the essay as a way to evaluate how a person thinks. Now that a machine can write it for you, we need new ways to evaluate how students think. That's the real task we are facing. Fuck the essay, just like we ditched the slide rule for calculators and later computers, etc. Tools change but the real game remains the same: Think for yourself!", ">\n\nI'd say the best way would be to accept the reality of changing technology and reevaluating the approach we have towards education as a whole.\nGranted, I'd say that's only one half of the picture: reassessing how we conceive if jobs and labour in the face of increasing automation goes along with that, and I think neither really works without the other.\nBottom line is that human labour is more and more obsolete as time goes on, so human jobs will be less and less in demand (I'd argue moving away from a capitalistic system is the right call, but even if you don't, automation is still an incentive).\nSince a large part of the incentive of our current education system is \"prepare you for a job\" I think the whole thing is going to fall short in light of these kinds of systems developing.\nTheres lots of people now who pursue knowledge as a project of passion, rather than a means to an end, and I think moving to a system that supports and encourages that kind of ambition is the way to go.", ">\n\nI disagree. We should learn to use the tools we have efficiently. Otherwise you are not learning for your career but for some professors ego", ">\n\nThat’s not “education in the era of ChatGPT.” That’s education in the era before ChatGPT while we figure out what the world with ChatGPT will look like so we have some idea of what to do with it.\nThat’s also not “educating,” that’s just “assessment.” Assessment is simply a measuring system for education. As long as you think of the acquisition of knowledge and skill as requiring knowledge regurgitation and skill performance in isolation and divorced from context/individualized, then you’re going to end up at necessitating a kind of geofenced, Luddite assessment model. The training itself predicates the assessment method. How we assess is defined by how we teach, and vice versa.\nThe best assessment method to gauge understanding is, and always has been, conversation.\nAll we need to do is pair assessment with regular conversation between qualified teacher and student to determine if personal comprehension is present. Not an interview, not an interrogation — conversation. Problem solving performance contexts are also great revealer of internalized knowledge and skill.\nChatGPT is a relative nonissue if your approach to assessment is at all human.\nIt’s only a problem when you’re trying to mechanize and dehumanized education. “Rigorous” does not mean “mechanical.” We are going to have to trust the professional, knowledge- and skill-assessing judgements of humans who already know and can do.\nEducation reverts to having more emphasis on apprenticeship and mentorship models, where the relationship itself is part of the learning process. \n(The “accountability!” cranks are gonna love that…)", ">\n\nI have a strong suspicion that discussions like this, while very interesting, will be obsolete long before any changes can actually be implemented in schools. In fact, I'm pretty sure schools will be gone entirely in the near future.\nAs of right now, you can be taught almost any subject by an exceptionally well-spoken, fast and infinitely patient teacher called GPT to a university level, if not higher. Try it right now - go ask GPT to explain the political situation that allowed Alexander the Great to conquer Persia, or ask it to explain the raytracing algorithm. If there's a part you don't understand, ask it to clarify. You'll be amazed how accessible it makes advanced topics.\nNow, how long before we have VR software with a realistic-looking AI teacher, with an AI-generated voice, who can do the same thing, but respond to students' voices and use body language and visual demonstrations? Five years?\nHow long after that before this tech is cheap, and of such high quality that sending your kids to school will be a worse education?\nNow in, say, 20 years, we could have an AI system that takes a DNA sample, analyses a students genotype to understand what subjects they will be naturally good at, what education approaches will be most successful, and continuously improves its model of the student's behavior by observing them. It crafts a decades-long education journey tailored to the individual, and accompanies them the entire way.\nTeachers, as far as they've existed so far, don't have a chance.", ">\n\nAre you trying to test someone or teach them?\nIf the latter, why do you care about cheating? This reminds me of the ol' teachers who used to restrict calculators because \"you won't always have a calculator with you.\"", ">\n\nYou forget that for 99% of homework students could just copy each other's work. Having the answers out in the world accessible is not a new problem. You just make homework a small part of the grades and you make sure students understand it's important to actually do it or they won't do well on the tests.", ">\n\nThere are so many people that can’t do the basic math examples you mentioned somewhere and they went to school at a time when there were no calculators.\nOn the other hand I was allowed to use calculators in school pretty much the moment I left elementary school and I am really quite good at math even without assistance.\nTool usage is one of humanities key features and trying to work against it instead of finding ways to incorporate new technology into school and life seems backwards.", ">\n\nIronically the teacher will have to use an AI to decipher the \"hand written\" assignments.", ">\n\nYou can't force people to learn.", ">\n\nWhat about teaching how to think rather than how to memorize? Just a thought 💭", ">\n\nThey need to get rid of homework, and have students do their work while they're at school. It's awful, they just pile it on, even if a class only has a little homework that day, there's like 6 or 7 classes so it's a nightmare for students. Seems like the only way to prevent cheating is have them do work in class, so I hope for the students sake, they do that.", ">\n\nI’ll throw my idea into the ring, though we’re still a few years off from this technology:\nWe should have students interact with AI tutors that can prompt them questions and point out details. Then they can collaborate on assignments, and the AI tutor can give feedback and suggest snippets. The AI can evaluate their work and their engagement with the material.", ">\n\nOne of Transformers main applications is in search. Ie you get a set of embeddings you can compare the pairwise distances between embedding and get a list of scores that tell you which embeddings are most similar to the input. \nEssentially tools like google are made to reduce the search space for a given query collect likely links and then rerank the most likely results. \nChatgpt basically does this in a more direct way of searching through a space of potential responses. Basically trained on a task to predict next token given the previous tokens or fill in a mask\nTransformers permeate everything students use from the recommendation algorithms on TikTok Facebook, YouTube to search systems in google. \nIn my opinion students should absolutely not be taught to fear these tools tho I do agree they be tested in constrained environments to challenge them. Current systems should not be used to learn unless you have a clear understanding and are willing to check every word and check your reasoning. Future systems will be much better though so this problem isn’t going anywhere. \nIf anything there should be a push to make these ideas more interpretable to a younger audience and give them the tools to navigate an increasingly complex market of ideas. They should be aware of the limitations and how when they use a piece of software their actions and the actions of those around them are influencing what they see next. \nIt should be used and taught with rigor. \nIt’s programming 2.0", ">\n\nDude no; \nChatGPT is the computer. \nDo you want to be the education system that banned the computer and then wondered why all the other education systems output modern tech workers, while your education system kept outputting chimney sweeps and car factory workers?", ">\n\nHW only exists to make students practice, and generally is worth less than 20% of the grade in a class. If a student chooses to use chat GPT to bypass it then that’s the student’s loss.\nUltimately exams are what schools use to evaluate a students knowledge and I don’t think that’s going to change anytime soon", ">\n\nThere are already programs that check if something was written by an AI or not. Also no student I know actually uses chatGPT for major assignments because chatGPT doesn’t know every text to ever be published so it doesn’t understand the context, and most of the time will just bullshit an answer that’s incorrect.\nEveryone I know that uses chatGPT for school do so for either for assignments so small and simple that it doesn’t make sense to quarantine, or they use it as a more advanced google that can answer questions more accurately than a search engine could, essentially just saving time.\n(most) students are using chatGPT largely as a productivity and time management tool rather than to cheat.", ">\n\nThis is like saying “in the age of calculators, the only way to ensure kids learn maths is to ban calculators in school”. If looked at correctly, chatgpt is an effect multiplier, learning just has to be rejigged to have kids learn to do things that they can’t simply ask chatgpt to do for them.", ">\n\nLess course work and more exams is the future in a world with chatGPT.", ">\n\nChatGPT will be a big no issue soon. I work in a research field and this was something we worried about last year. As of now there are multiple tools and even more being developed that catch the use of ChatGPT. There has been research published that list ChatGPT as a co-author, but for most research, and use by students, it will simply be forbidden and will easily be caught as well. The program does well but it has a particular style that can be caught. Again it will be a non-issue soon.", ">\n\nThis is like forbidding people to use a calculator because it can give you the result instant. A better way is to teach them how to use the calculator, because its here now and won't go away. Same with GPT. Children can learn way better/faster with ChatGPD if used correctly. Imaging having a private teacher for free which helps you learning every time of the day." ]
> You’ll still have to pass a test. Relax.	[ "/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^\| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.", ">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?", ">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.", ">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?", ">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.", ">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?", ">\n\nYou mean a grade?", ">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication", ">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.", ">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)", ">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.", ">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.", ">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.", ">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.", ">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?", ">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.", ">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.", ">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.", ">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.", ">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.", ">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.", ">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.", ">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.", ">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.", ">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.", ">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.", ">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.", ">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.", ">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use", ">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.", ">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.", ">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.", ">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.", ">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.", ">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.", ">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.", ">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).", ">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.", ">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.", ">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.", ">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.", ">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.", ">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.", ">\n\n\nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \n\nWhy? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it. \n\nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \n\nWhy? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? \nLet's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project. \n\nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.\n\nTotally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator.", ">\n\nFor the most part, knowledge workers perform a given amount of work in a given amount of hours, and the number of them hired by a company is TotalHoursNeeded/NumHoursPerEmployee. E.g. if you have 100 manyears of work to get done in a typical year, you employ 100 people.\nChat GPT isn't going to \"replace\" people wholesale, because as you say someone still needs to supervise it. But it looks to be on track to increase the productivity of programmers (can write a first draft of code and finds many of the bugs instantly). \nSame for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones. \nSo now the TotalNeeded is decreased by some percentage, let's say 10% to start. Now you only need 90 human programmers to do that same work. With 25% efficiency gain, you need 75. With 50%, 50. Etc. \nOr take translation jobs. Today, an editor spends roughly 3 minutes per word editing machine translated text, and 1 minute per word editing human-translated text. As long as editors are more expensive per hour than first translation people, it still makes sense much of the time to hire translators, because the software isn't free. \nBut the graph of machine translation \"efficiency\" is trending towards taking the same amount of time to edit as a human translator. As soon as that's hit, there's literally no reason to hire human translators, only editors. \nAnd if the editing time goes down to 30 seconds/word because of further AI assistance to the editor, you only need half as many of those.", ">\n\nThere is currently two better solutions being worked on - one of which is already being used to some degree. \nThe first is ChatGPT developers themselves making moves to make AI written works to be identified by \"watermark\" or similar. I don't thi k this one has taken effect at all yet. \nAnother is by a separate dev team that allows teachers to use software to determine the amount of an essay, for example, that is written by AI what the likelihood of any one sentence or paragraph to have been written by AI. This allows the teachers to use discretion when determining if the student used the AI in a way that they find acceptable or not. This way instead kf running from the scary AI educators can actually utilize tyhe AI with students to help them develop their writing and other communications.", ">\n\nWhat about kids with transportation issues? When I was in school I knew kids that drove almost an hour each way to get there. I certainly couldn’t have asked my parents to drop everything to take me all the way to school so I could do my homework if I forgot. Bus schedules? Do you think schools want to waste more money by burning more gas for extra routes? I understand where you’re coming from, but for a fair amount of children—especially in poorer, more rural areas—that getting to school and back is such a delicate balancing act that such a thing would just punish them.", ">\n\nI've seen a few key things from academics testing out ChatGPT (I have not signed up myself):\n\nIt tends to produce confident, convincing nonsense. It doesn't actually understand what it's writing about, and I hear it shows.\nIt makes up citations. Real authors in the field, real journals... but made-up titles. Things like that, since, again, it doesn't actually understand citations.\n\nThis suggests that, for assignments requiring the demonstration of genuine, in-depth understanding, and not merely the ability to summarize facts, ChatGPT will fail.\nA similar example that you bring up in the comments is programming cheat sheets into calculators - but for well-designed engineering exams (including the licensure exams, at least in the US), cheat sheets are fine and often either allowed or provided. A well-designed exam tests the ability to apply principles, not knowledge of equations, so a cheat sheet is harmless, or even allows the exam to work better (since people aren't distracted with memorizing equations).", ">\n\nThere are three criticisms that I have of this approach. \n\n\nShould we not teach to the environment that we live in? Yes, education often imposes arbitrary constraints like time tests but for research and reports why not let people use and work around all resources? If you can work around chat gpt to work efficiently, then do it. You learn what it can and can’t do and how to use it effectively as a tool. \n\n\nCan chatGPT on it’s own actually write a good essay? From what I have seen it can pull together a few sources. It can generally write fluff based on other things that it has seen. But it struggles to write analysis. It can’t interrogate a source or make value judgements. It could be useful for doing some filler or providing ideas but if to do an actual report, I think it would be insufficient. \n\n\nAn assignment that can be done using chatgpt is probably boring. Here I am writing an essay for no reason other than I find it interesting to discuss this topic. Perhaps, we arent giving students interesting enough assignments or we are overloading them to the point that they don’t have the time to engage? If chatGPT turns out to be an issue maybe it’s more of an indictment of the structures and norms of education.", ">\n\n\n\nhomework in the form of essays, take home tests, coding assignments, would be completed on school grounds. \n\n\nCongratulations, you've invented the \"cram school\".\nI'd recommend reading through your post again and actually thinking about the things you've said. Because essentially, you're merely advocating for the wholesale elimination of homework and for education outside of that to remain totally unchanged. It's almost literally, \"Make the school day 30% longer\".\nMy solution to the \"problem\" of students potentially using ChatGPT to cheat on homework: I don't think you need a hilariously convoluted system of homework \"boiler rooms\" redolent of national security apparatus, that requires schools to adopt ruinously expensive and disruptive technological and administrative changes.\nIt would be sufficient if we institute a system whereby teachers are encouraged to, let's say... \"test\" their students, whether by regular written exams or by talking to them in what I'll call \"classes\", to ensure they understand the material they've been assigned to learn.\nThis method ensures that students cannot use AI homework bots to coast through classes (since they'll literally be found out the very next class), and has the added benefit of not adding three hours to every teacher's day.", ">\n\nWhat about pen and ink?", ">\n\narguably I can just copy a ChatGPT output by hand. So I think that is a first level measure, but not a complete solution.", ">\n\nIt's a better solution than prison just because the curriculum can't keep up with technology.\nWhen calculators arrived on everyone's phone and everyone's pocket did you advocate for the same solution? Unlikely, so why only now with this system?", ">\n\nWell I did and I was. When I was studying engineering in the 80s we routinely could not arrive at exams with a calculator. Even then calculators were programmable enough to allow students to write cheat sheets in calculator memory.\nIt forced us to memorize equations, principals of engineering, and independent thinking. I’m a better engineer because I did.", ">\n\nSo you're what, almost 60? And you think what's best for children is to be like you? Don't you think you may be a bit out of touch?\nAlso, your view was about K12 students, not engineering students.", ">\n\nNo. As I replied, leaning on tools as a crutch all your life will limit your ability and function as a human. For example, you could argue that basic math isn’t necessary. As matter of fact that was an argument years ago with the advent of calculators.\nHowever, humans should be able to exist and functions without a digital crutch. You should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator. You should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google. There are basic elements of duration necessary since we are all still wet grey matter.", ">\n\n\nYou should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator\n\nBut why?\n\nYou should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google\n\nAgain, why?\nWhere do you get your \"should\" from?\nI have basically all human knowledge in my hand, every equation or conversion I'll ever need day to day, even every language I'll likely ever encounter. Why shouldn't I leave my brain free to think about what it wants and to use my incredible resource as and when it's needed?\nDo you envision some Saw-like situation where you're locked to a wall and need to solve maths equations at pain of death?", ">\n\nThe less you use your brain the less likely your body is to maintain it. Our body functions through a use or lose it principle. Just look people who lose movement function/muscle just by being bedridden for a long time. Our brain is not different.\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.", ">\n\nIs wasting resources on process you can deletage outside not using your brain? You free up that space to put to what you decide is important.\n\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.\n\nThe weakest man with a gun can take out the strongest bodybuilder.", ">\n\nAnd if you decide Tik tok and Netflix are important? How do you think that will affect the cognitive ability of kids?\nI didn't mention strength nor physical strength. And even then the strongest man with a gun will probably take out the weakest man with a gun.(An actual fair comparison)", ">\n\nCouldn't chatgpt (or somesuch AI) be asked \"Hey - did you write this?\" and nip this sort of thing in the bud?", ">\n\nNo, Chat GPT doesn't remember everything it's said, the potential things it could say are huge and even if someone wrote something that Chat GPT might say, it could be a coincidence.", ">\n\nWell, strike that idea then.\nStill though - there must be some way to use AI to deal with this. \"set a thief to catch a thief\" and all that.", ">\n\nChat GPT (and most generative AIs) use GANs to generate content. \nIn laymen's terms (and extremely simplified as it's above my level of understanding) a GAN is 2 AI systems competing against each other, a creator AI that creates content and a checker AI that decides if the content was genuine or made by the other AI. \nSo any automated way to tell if it's AI generated can be built into the checker AI in future versions and the creator AI will learn to avoid whichever features the checker AI is spotting.", ">\n\nChatGPT is just another mechanism for reducing the need for labor, and it's not going away. \nChildren will need to be educated in both how to make effective use of it (for as long as it's not sufficient to completely eliminate mental labor), and also in the ethics of not using it. Always forcing them to write in airgapped places isn't going to do that, it just makes them resent it. \nAlso: essay writing on a scale needed to really learn long-form writing is not very amenable to doing in an airgapped classroom, because honestly we're not using dead-tree sources of information anymore already, so doing their research pretty much has to include doing it on line. \nBut really: laborious manual long-form essay writing is going to go the way of penmanship and looking things up in a library as an unneeded skill very quickly. We need children to adjust to that reality of the modern world rather than pretending it will go away. \nPeople are still needed (for now) to do the important part of writing essays without doing the laborious bit that ChatGPT automates anyway: deciding what to write, and editing it into a convincing and well-written form. \nForcing kids to spend a lot of time learning how to write the basic bulk part of essays is a lot like teaching them how to make buggy-whips in shop class: a pointless exercise. \nIt would be better to give them all prewritten ChatGPT essays and have them learn the limitations and capabilities.", ">\n\nIs ChatGPT really that much more effective than just grabbing things off Wikipedia? I was asking it things about elections and it was just Wikipedia from two years ago", ">\n\nThe answer is NEVER to limit technology. It’s to teach the new generation how to use that technology to achieve the same goal.\nIt’s pointless to ban computers and teach the memorization of dates in history class. It’s much more productive to teach online research skills so that if an individual needs to know the date of a particular moment in history, they can reliably Google it.\nChatGPT is the same. It renders writing essays as pointless, and it necessitates the teachers to adapt to new teaching styles, such as teaching the skills on how best to manipulate ChatGPT to return the information you need.", ">\n\nI was banned from using programming calculators when I studied engineering in the 80s during exams. It forced the students to all be on the same level playing field and forced us to actually know the equations, their applications, and the processes of whatever engineering course I was taking.\nIt made us better engineers.", ">\n\nHow does handicapping you make you a better engineer? If I put you and an engineer trained with technology in the same room together, who do you think would accomplish the task faster?", ">\n\nThe handicapped engineer, easily. The point of forcing students to actually learn the material is so that they understand how to reason about the underlying processes when they need to troubleshoot something going wrong, and understand the tradeoffs between approaches and how to select the best one for the task. \nOnce you understand things deeply you don't actually need training in doing things quickly because it's immediately intuitive how to apply a technological process to save time. The guy that leaned heavily on technology is basically fucked if he has to use a technique or software that he didn't specifically train on since he doesn't have a good foundation to abstract from. It would be more appropriate to call this person a technician.", ">\n\nThe purpose of calculators is to do the menial part of the work, not to solve whole processes. The engineer that learned with calculators likely knows how to select the right process to solve a problem, but uses the calculator to do the math faster and with fewer errors.", ">\n\nAt the college level, we’re not talking about tools to add and multiply. We’re talking about tools like Wolfram Alpha that do entire symbolic manipulations for you. If I took a calculus class and on all the assignments used Wolfram Alpha to find derivatives, do you think I would have learned anything?\nThat is what ChatGPT is doing for essays", ">\n\nThere are things called pencil and paper.", ">\n\nAs I said, this is the first line defense. However as I already commented to another user. I can simply hand copy ChatGPT output. Essentially not doing my own independent research, writing, coding, and studying.", ">\n\nWhy don't you consider that research? \nThe first source was the best. It's incredibly efficient research IMO.", ">\n\nThe idea of tool removal has always been flawed. From calculators to chat GPT and beyond. If your test is so flimsy that a simple tool invalidates it then the test is poorly built. Test shouldn't be simple busywork tasks, they should require thinking, problem solving, complex thought. If it's just a game of memorization that can be cheated by answers on a paper, you've built a bad test.\nover memorization (which is what our current school systems teach) is not only unhelpful, but also harmful. We live in an era of wikipedia being a reliable source, of vast access to tools both online and phsycial. We should be teaching kids they should do the work but with the help of those tools, not despite them.\nThe main issue with your argument is that based on what you've said, i can assume you think the current school system is a good one but so many studies have shown that at least here in the US, the school systems are some of the worst in the world. It's this memorize, ignore tools, singular focus mentality that plays such a big role.\nIf we were more creative with education, incorporating tool utilization into the learning process, we'd likely have a major improvement to our educational successes. I could go on about how the education system prefers certain kinds of students over others, and how many students are left behind simply because they don't learn like other kids and are therefore punished, but I won't. All I'll say is that more restrictions on how and what kids learn isn't going to help them learn more or better.\nand in 15 years when chat GPT is a part of daily life in every single company on the planet in some way or another (which I'm beyond certain it will be), kids who were taught how to properly utilize it will have just such a huge advantage in the workforce over those who weren't", ">\n\nRather than attempt to find ways to prevent new technology from interfering with existing pedagogy, shouldn't we review and revise pedagogy as new technology develops? \nIf a chat AI program can write these things, what is the point of having humans repeatedly do the same work? We don't expect people to use an abacus when doing math, or limit their research to what's in the library card catalogue, or require printed paper publications as essay resources; we adapted to the calculator, and to the internet and search engines. So too should we adapt to things like ChatGPT, not by trying to pretend it doesn't exist, but by finding ways to incorporate it into a more holistic approach to learning.\nRather than chain kids to an airgapped room on school grounds outside of school hours to do homework that's of dubious educational value in the first place, we should take this as an opportunity to refocus schooling on in-class engagement and direct instruction. ChatGPT and programs like it are showing us yet another thing we as humans can outsource to our technology, so why struggle to do things in a more difficult and inefficient way?", ">\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\nIn addition, AI is only as good as the data it is fed. You must still be able to do the work on your own to analyze when the AI is giving valid outputs (garbage in, garbage out). This is especially true, when AI runs the risks of being owned or operated by those with a specific agenda. Can you imagine the trouble that would result if people relied on AI to determine who to vote for, but someone was able to pay the operators to have the AI promote them?\nRelying on AI to do our work for us is a distillation of an appeal to authority fallacy on a large scale (if the AI says it, it must be true).", ">\n\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\n\nThis is something I worry about A LOT when it comes to AI. Our collective understanding of the subjects that we usually classify as \"the humanities\" is constantly evolving as we learn more, and especially as a more diverse set of people are allowed to study, research and put forth opinions and arguments.\nImagine if students were outsourcing all their history, psychology, sociology and philosophy homework to a chatbot with a 1950s understanding of those subjects.\nImagine doctors outsourcing psych patient diagnoses to a chatbot with the same understanding.\nOn an arguably less \"serious\" but still critically important moral and political topic, imagine if all/most videogame art was outsourced to an AI engine with a 1990s sensibility for female characters. Same for all kinds of representation and diversity.\nHow about politics and political science in general... ha!\nEtc, etc etc.\nIt is NOT the case that we already have discovered all the true answers to the big questions, and we can merely turn to a \"knowledge calculator\" like ChatGPT to spit out the truth.\nEven if AI can pretty accurately reflect the discourse of the day, as it is currently understood and accepted, our collective knowledge and culture will stagnate if we do not actively participate in developing it, and we will all pay the price for that.", ">\n\nThese are all moralistic arguments that ultimately don’t mean anything.", ">\n\nI would say they are more epistemic arguments, which do matter greatly in the context of education (which is what the op was referring to).", ">\n\nAre any of these things mentioned actually realistic concerns? Someone is going to train an AI bot to generate 90s female art characters with big tits?\nNo. Lol and even if someone did, who cares?", ">\n\nConsidering how many people believe obviously fake stories that have no supporting evidence (and in spite of contrary evidence), yes, I believe they are very real concerns.\nIf an AI says we should use Brawndo in farming because its got what plants crave (electrolytes), we should probably be able to justify it with reasoning beyond \"the AI says so.\"", ">\n\nWho is suggesting we do anything “just because an AI said so”? \nDo you read books and think everything in it is true “because the book says so”?", ">\n\nHow do you determine if what the book/ai said is false?\nYou would typically do it through a process of research and discovery.\nPeoples' ability to do research and discovery will be greatly diminished if we rely on AI to do those things for us (which is what the previous posters were suggesting).\nTherefore, reliance on AI will lead to us losing the ability to discern if the results of what the AI is saying is correct.", ">\n\nWhat? Lol that doesn’t make any sense at all. \nIt is not like if we use AI then all previous knowledge is simply forgotten or lost. It’s all still there.", ">\n\nForcing homework at school makes that \"not homework\", and this approach has never worked. You cant reject change, it never works. Every time there has been a game changing event, people adapted. Those who tried to reject change disappeared. Horse carriages disappeared from roads because something else replaced it. Some people supposedly rejected progress, but they are lying to themselves, they still use modern tech or services at some point.\nAnyway, the change is here, and it made essays irrelevant. Time to find another way to test people skills. \nGive it a little time though. ChatGPT costs a ginormous amount of money to run and will not stay free for long either.", ">\n\nIt's not just ChatGPT, the actual innovation is not the interface but lies in algorithms that can recreate natural language of similar quality with smaller data samples. There are also OpenSource datasets like ThePile, etc. so even if OpenAI moves to a paid model (and they will, quickly. You can already sign up to be first in line for the API), there will be other free providers.", ">\n\nHaving coded AIs, I disagree. ChatGPT is a regular trained AI. The novelty is the scale of the operation, and the fact there is a public API.\nNo one ever spent that much money on resources to run and train an AI publicly. I am pretty sure google has done something similar with user data sets to make their search engine and general ecosystem.\nI wish there was a way to have algorithms working with smaller data sets and produce similar results, but it kind of does not work that way.", ">\n\nThere are already tools to identify ChatGPT generated texts. Such tools will improve as another use of literally the same technology.\nJust as teachers submit essays for identifying plagiarism, teachers will submit essays for identifying AI-generated text. \nFurther, a focus could change from grading students on what they know to grading students' ability to ask meaningful, content-based questions about the subject. After all, knowing facts isn't particularly valuable as a skill. Integrating facts and discovering valuable questions is still something that remains a uniquely human skill. And is where people will continue to add value as AI becomes more advanced.", ">\n\nStudents have always been able to 'cheat' on work done outside the classroom, by copying or somehow getting others to do their work for them, even before the internet. Yes with more advanced modern technology it is easier but this has always been a concern. \nAs regular learning environments like supervised classrooms are already 'quarantined' in the way you descibe you are fundementally just suggesting an increase in learning hours as a supplement to homework. This has been suggested by many for various reasons but it would overall cuase more issues than it fixes. It increases work load on teachers and administrators, stretching already thin educational budgets, and forces increased mental strain on children. It would limit their ability to do other recreational and out of ciriculum activities. This would be disruptive and controlling when the quantity of teaching and learning time that children recive is already considered sufficiant for a good education.", ">\n\nHell the only thing stopping me from using ChatGPT regularly for my work now is that it's always at capacity.", ">\n\nApply tests that are hand written, doesnt matter how a person obtains the knowledge, actually learning the subject is most important thing.", ">\n\nThere is no amount of ChatGPT that could influence a good old oral exam where the teacher evaluates the understanding via a little chat.", ">\n\nSo tired of this view. We shouldn’t be fighting technology. Teach kids to use the resources they have to find answers. It’s such a waste of 12 years of school, teaching kids to memorize facts and follow rules. \nInstead, every test should be open book and reward the best answers. Ask the kids to show their work or explain their thought process so we reward understanding of a topic rather than memorization of steps or text.", ">\n\n20 years ago, there were already homework communities and learn groups. Even from the publishers of school books and with free access to tutors. Ok, they didnt do the final homework for me, but gave me a great starting point.\nBeing the kid who transcribes a wiki page was already stupid back then when others could call you out:\nBut I guess the actual problem is lack of digital literacy with teachers, they're always 5-10 years behind.", ">\n\nIf you are testing skills that can be done by free tools on the internet, then you are testing irrelevant skills.\nThe best way to educate kids is to test for skills they need, not skills they objectively don't.\nI was able to witness a couple of universities adapt to tests during quarantine, and follow reports on how the new methods would be used going forward.\nThe results where thus:\nMass offline testing is incredibly cost efficient (one examiner per ~300 students), but the tests results are a poor indicator of real world performance.\nOne to One testing is incredibly expensive, but can, when done right, test actual understanding and performance.\nBoth will be useful, of course. Mass testing is most useful when used in a way that students aren't incentivized to cheat, such as when framed as practice.", ">\n\nOne of the upsides of needing to prevent this kind of tech from cheating assignments is that teachers should focus on having students be able to do their homework at school. (As a former teacher, we were trying to do this already- no more than 15 min of homework per class). \nI dont think we need to do quite what you say. We just need to limit outside electronics and have in-person classrooms or computer labs with programs designed to be AI-proof. \nI have ALWAYS believed that cell phones/internet watches should be stored in school lockers (at most) and never allowed anywhere else on campus during the school day. If anyone needs to contact the students they contact the desk who relays their message/other need. Many schools already do this.", ">\n\n∆\nI agree with this. It would help.", ">\n\nThank you!", ">\n\nThat is utterly pointless.\nThere is no reason to limit the available tools.\nThis just reminds me of the entire \"you won't have a calculator wherever you go\" argument.\nSchool should instead put a focus on responsibly using available tools.", ">\n\nAnd if students choose to use them irresponsibly, what should schools do?\nAnd can you please define what constitutes responsible use? Because despite knowing about plagiarism, people still copy and paste from the internet. Perfect abstinence is easier than perfect moderation after all.", ">\n\nJust return to hand written essays and have more oral exams.", ">\n\n∆l\nActually of all comments having oral exams compliments my post and I agree with you. Enjoy the delta.", ">\n\nIn a Faraday cage.", ">\n\nIf children can just generate work with ChatGPT, it simply shows that children are not being taught anything valuable. (Once ChatGPT responses can be generated in almost unlimited amounts at very low cost, it necessarily means those responses are of low value)\nInstead shouldn't we be teaching children to provide more valuable outcomes that ChatGPT can't replicate?", ">\n\nBeing able to do on your own what ChatGPT does with access to an immense amount of data and processing power is valuable. The actual writing isn't valuable, obviously, but it would be silly to expect it to be. It's just a side effect of practice, you spend time making things of little or no value to build up the skills you'll need to make something that actually matters. That's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\nI think you'd be hard pressed to teach a class of children to outperform ChatGPT in writing without ever asking them to write something that could also be done via AI. What would that even look like?", ">\n\n\nThat's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\n\nIt is a problem. That is why I hated math class until 2nd year of university.", ">\n\nDid you start discovering novel math results in your second year of university, or was that just the point at which you first encountered problems you found interesting, despite the fact that someone else had already solved them before? Thinking back the class you didn't hate, do you think it should be removed if someone can construct an AI to give all the answers you gave?", ">\n\nThis is only a method for evaluating students, it doesn't do anything to educate them.\nChatgpt is potentially a great tool for education but trying to find complex ways around it for homework is pointless. When testing fact retention is required using school/university computers with no web browsing makes sense. For any other test or situation it's a tool that might be used.", ">\n\nI understand OPs concern. That said, I do not think you can create true quarantine for a multitude of reasons. \nThe biggest one is probably time. I worked through high school and university. Because I lived in the middle of nowhere it was about a 30 min drive to high school and then an hour to uni. Having to stay at these quarantine zones to complete assignments would have been hell on my schedule, car, and wallet. \nYou said it yourself, if someone is going to cheat, they will cheat. If I had to do the work in a quarantine zone, what exactly stops me from doing the actual work on my computer at home, printing it all out, and then just writing that into the computer at the quarantine zone? Unless you want to try having students write an entire essay in their hour long class? There has to be a point where they go home and then this falls apart.", ">\n\nThere are already lots of ways to cheat in homework and mostly our steps to deal with that amount to the honour system, and by university level, automated plagiarism detection (which can be quite easily avoided). The point you \"won't argue\" that people will cheat if given the opportunity is probably the actual crux of what's wrong with your suggestion and the part that needs a big [citation needed]. Concluding that the majority of people are fundamentally dishonest is a big assumption to handwave away. \nIf you want an education, cheating is stupid. Ultimately you might get a paper qualification out of it but you'll have actually learned nothing - you won't hold up long against someone who has done it properly when you actually have to apply the skills. Or if you do, then the assignments weren't that crucial to the learning in the first place.", ">\n\nMany of the things I learned in school were largely irrelevant. I couldn't use a calculator to do long division. After I passed those early elementary school years I never did long division again. I wouldn't even argue learning the long division algo is mandatory. It's nice to have learnt it I guess, but I spent way too many hours on it. I can see learning fundamentals of essay writing, etc, are great, but why can't we just evolve to learn more effective things in life? ChatGPT should be used as a tool, not viewed as a detriment.", ">\n\nIt'd suggest that the best way to educate them is to embrace ChatGBT and teach them to use it well. Your method is a bit like teaching kids to do math without calculators or accounting without excel or financial software. There is some value, but it runs out very quickly and you're at a social and competetive disadvantage for taking some archane principled approach to education that is more of a defense of \"how we used to do it\".\nI'm old enough to remember when using a word processor was sometime forbidden for reasons of fairness - that seems entirely disconnected now from doing good work and it's almost hard to envision the thought process of those who thought everything should be hand written for students. \nIsn't the kid who is amazing at utilizing tools like ChatGBT going to do much better in the world than the one who does not? Your idea of \"proper education\" would easily regress back to needing to do all subjects scrawled in dirt with sticks and grunted in non-standardized language.", ">\n\nOR, chatgpt will be a great boon to the entire education system:\nIncreased accessibility: ChatGPT and other AI-powered systems can provide education to individuals who otherwise would not have access to it, due to geographical, financial, or other barriers.\n\nPersonalized learning: ChatGPT can provide personalized education experiences based on each student's strengths, weaknesses, and learning style.\n\n24/7 availability: ChatGPT can operate 24/7, providing students with access to education at any time, anywhere, which can be especially beneficial for those with demanding schedules or for individuals in remote areas.\n\nScalability: ChatGPT can provide education to a large number of students simultaneously, which could help to address the shortage of teachers and resources in some areas.\n\nCost-effectiveness: ChatGPT can be a more cost-effective option for providing education compared to traditional methods, as it does not require physical classrooms or teachers.\n\nImproved student engagement: ChatGPT can provide interactive, engaging learning experiences that can hold students' attention and foster deeper learning.\n\n--Source: ChatGPT", ">\n\nThere a lots of places where texts and exams are “open book”. The questions have to be written differently, and the point is that you’re not testing someone’s ability to memorize, but rather their ability to understand. This is a more difficult test to write, so in theory AI could force education to improve since everyone would a virtual tutor with them at all times.", ">\n\nI'm a teacher and I've been thinking a lot about this the last couple months. Changes within the education system/curriculum/syllabus/retraining of teachers will take far too long to keep up with the ease of access to, and success of, chatgpt and AI in general. \nThe only solution moving forward both short and long term is to embrace it, there is no stopping it now anyway and if we don't all want to be out of a job in 5 years we need to - \n- demonstrate feasible/moral/ethical use of such tools\n- create more opportunities for collaborative learning/hands-on/problem solving tasks and ones that increase communication skills between peers. \nHow this applies to each individual, specific task will vary and must require a lot of creativity and trial and error, but I think relying too heavily on your department of education to handle this (or most 'boots on the ground' problems) will ultimately only degrade a students experience and ability for learning.", ">\n\nI'm with you on what you're trying to accomplish. I just don't know that it's the \"best\" way. \nFor instance, how is homework performed in school superior to trusting the kids to learn the material, which would then be tested by oral exam? And yes, I do believe that asking a student to verbally explain a topic is a really good way to gauge mastery.", ">\n\nThere is not a hope in hell that we'll go back to hand written stuff. That's not how technology works. As the music companies. There are better ways to show you know a subject, for sure, than the current out of-date ones. That's for sure. Have you ever taken an on-line exam?", ">\n\nI argue to let them use chatGPT as it will be their future. This is similar to my generations \"you'll never walk around with a calculator so learn math.\" The future children will grow into a society where work means utilizing AI tech to help them thrive. If chatGPT helps them write an essay, and it's good, it means they're using resources. I agree, however, that we should supplement this with actual reading and writing.", ">\n\nI would argue that most of time that ChatGPT and similar technologies is going to be an issue is in 8-12 grade and college.\nThis technology is not going away, and it's only going to improve. Personally I would treat it like calculators, audio books and spell check.\nTech kids how to use the technology properly. Sure it's somewhat handy to calculate numbers in your head, but having the ability to do math in your head does not give you much of an advantage in today's world and not being able to doesn't hurt you much. But it's still critical to know formulas and how to peace together algebraic statements and word problems. \nKnowing how to spell properly is less important than knowing proper word usage - most times you're writing something it can be spell-checked in real time. Sure it's \"terrible that today's kids...\" don't know how to spell... but it's not going to affect their career. \nEnter ChatGPT - same thing. Should I spend the time to write a white paper on the changing advertising landscape to alert my boss about the a potential seismic shift in advertising revenue, or should I ask ChatGPT to write it? As a user I have to understand its limits and potential copywrite issues, but even more importantly how to verify that what it writes is correct and targeting the right audience. Is data from before 2020 going to be recent and accurate enough for my thesis? How do I supplement the discussion with real-world data? \nThis is our new reality. We should be learning how to use the tools properly, not trying to figure out to lock it down (which frankly makes as much sense as locking down the use of calculators or spell check).", ">\n\nI think there are already apps in place that are able to detect AI generated text (Read this article).\nAlso, I think a better method would be to simply have a database of ChatGPT (could be encrypted) generated text and make it available to already existing software that is use to detect plagiarism (this is just an exemple amongst many)", ">\n\nFrankly I don’t think high schoolers and below should be given homework or tests at all. One learns magnitudes better through exploration as opposed to mindless repetition. Engage with these kids intellectually, make them free thinking Athenians, not bags of knowledge of which they have no idea how to use.\nDoes it not surprise anyone that we train people for over a decade in intellect yet hardly have any intellectuals?", ">\n\nI would argue that society would be better off spending resources on teaching children how to use this tool effectively. Knowing how to get the right answer is what matters in this world.", ">\n\nThen answer this: Well why learn math at all? Seriously.\nWhy learn he concept of subtraction let alone division? I could and society has argued that with the advent of digital calculators. \nYet we learn it. \nLater we use calculators to take the mundane and already known processes to the next level. We abstract away the mundane. \nAs a EE having worked and am working on products you may be using right now to read this, when I develop new silicon and chips I don’t break out Karnaugh maps and lay down circuit using a T square and stencils of gates. But I sure the hell know what I’m doing and expect the tools to do for me. \nTeaching fundamentals of reading, writing, arithmetic, essays, research are just that fundamental.", ">\n\nI’d argue that the vast majority don’t need anything beyond basic math anyways. \nGo ask the average adult if they know the quadratic equation and what it means and you’d probably be disappointed.", ">\n\nChatGPT is here to stay, you'd better advocate for teaching people how to make the most of it and use it wisely instead of pretending it doesn't exist.\nOne of my favourite teachers always told students to use the best tools there are.", ">\n\nI think it depends completely on the topic. In my field of study, it’s fairly easy to come up with term paper assignments that the bot would be useless for. \nLooking back at the paper I wrote last year, I don’t see how any current bot could have helped, as it isn’t able to read or summarize specific sources (yet?).\nAn example of the type of assignments we get is “Discuss the role of state capacity in x and x conflict in light of (specific research paper)‘s dimensions of state capacity - do your findings confirm the findings of (authors), why or why not?\nThis way of combining literature made it difficult even for me to be on top of it, as there were no sources that had attempted this exact combination - it has to be original. \nAlso, I find it’s the best way to learn, because you have to rely on your own judgement and there are no shortcuts, even asking the professor was unhelpful as he wasn’t too familiar with the details.", ">\n\nThis is not the best way.", ">\n\n\nThese homework rooms would have Internet connected computers for use but access to ChatGPT would be filtered and blocked.\n\nThis wouldn't be feasible, there's far too many roundabout ways to still access ChatGPT. Security measures like domain filtering are just unproductive games of whack-a-mole. \nEdit: removed all the other stuff I wrote, as those points have already been mentioned in previous top-level comments.", ">\n\nHomework shouldn’t be the go-to method of “education” to begin with. Imo Universities should focus on the integral part of education: the lectures. Tools like chatgpt can help student who are actually interested in a subject to learn more easily about it, but whether students actually learn anything or not from a class won’t change regardless of if work is authentic or copied from an AI\nSource: I’m a college student and have had experience in both supervised environments where we had to do work without the use of computers/phones and solely-online environments where many students cheated", ">\n\nWhile this could work, it is not necessarily the best way in terms of accessibility and of learning in general. \nFirst, students with ADHD and certain other conditions may not necessarily be the able to be productive at all times, or at the specific time they have to work on those computers, especially if those computers are not in an environment ideal to that specific person. It would also not be very feasible to give students enough time on these computers to complete the bigger assignments and essays. \nSecond, while ChatGPT is quite advanced, it simply works by looking at language patterns and often gets factual details incorrect. For example, with bigger coding problems, it tries to import modules that do not exist or call on functions that it has not defined. In literature, it cannot analyze texts on much more than a surface level. I will admit it can use secondary sources for textual analysis, however, it is unable to come up with a clear thesis on its own. \nAdditionally, take-home tests can be just as easily cheated on using a normal Google search, and usually test thinking skills rather than understanding and knowledge. \nFinally, essay-writing and other types of assignments are generally not ideal for learning as they are only one type of skill, and university professors are recognizing this. Not only do they not work for all learning styles, but they are only used so commonly because of tradition. University professors are structuring assignments around ways that are innovative enough that ChatGPT is unable to work on them. Along with requiring specific readings which the AI might not have access to, and citing of all sources (which has always been a requirement that the AI might trip up on), they are also going away from the traditional essay format into others. For example, I am studying literature, a relatively essay-heavy field, and in my past few courses I have been asked to analyze comics (which the AI cannot read), edit other people’s essays and articles (from past courses), create a mock syllabus or lesson plan with justifications for each reading, and create annotated bibliographies as a stepping stone to an essay. All of these not only require different skills and encourage different types of learning and research but are quite difficult for an AI to do. \nAll in all, while your suggestion is great, the very nature of the AI and the fact that it exists at all is perhaps a sign that the best course of action is to rework the way we think about evaluation. After all, if an evaluation is such that an AI can complete it without the ability to actually think (it works by using observed language patterns), then perhaps the evaluation is not ideal.", ">\n\nI bet teachers and people thought the same thing about calculators when they came out or 1990s internet. AI bots like chat GPT are just a tool.", ">\n\nAll this effectively does is train kids to accomplish goals of a type that do not exist in the real world in a situation they will never realistically encounter. A better goal is adjusting testing criteria to account for this.\nThere might be very specific sets of knowledge for which rote memorization is appropriate, and for those, the air gapped testing may be appropriate. But I believe those are the exception rather than the rule. By and large, teaching kids to effectively utilize the tools that will be available to them is what we should be doing.", ">\n\nImagine learning where the only books are hand written.\nThe printing press took out a huge amount of repetitive labor in the learning process.\nAI/ChatGPT stands a good chance of removing a huge amount knowledge labor which stands between an idea and the end product. Learning to use the AI to best effect the Idea->End Product Chain is more important than worrying about memorizing formulae we will likely never need to remember. \nThe effort to restrict ChatGPT is just education system worrying about their Cheese Being Moved.", ">\n\nThis just doesn't make any sense to me. You're arguing that we shouldn't allow students to use tools they would have at their disposal in a real working environment, and for what? Why wouldn't you want students to use every tool at their disposal? How exactly is handicapping them helping them to understand the coursework?\nA much better approach would be to fundamentally alter how we teach to better prepare them for the workforce. Encouraging collaboration and creative problem solving skills is much more practical and effective.", ">\n\nChatGPT may pass the Bar, but I highly doubt it will replace lawyers or other professionals. \nThe whole point of credentialing is to drive accountability. Anyone can study the law and cite precedent without a law degree. Actually representing a client in a court of law requires oversight and knowledge. ChatGPT isn't perfect - it will make mistakes from time to time. So who is responsible when it makes a mistake? When is a client (who is not familiar with the law) supposed to know that a mistake has been made on their behalf? For this reason, until ChatGPT is literally perfect you're always going to need a credentialed professional to review the output.\nFor the record, I think ChatGPT is wonderful. But it's a tool that people will use, not a full-fledged replacement for professionals. My employer (a Fortune 500 company) has already rejected its use for internal projects. IT has the website blocked.", ">\n\nThe kids that are educated without its use will fall behind in business when faced with kids that are using it to its fullest extent.\nYou've successfully made an argument for people to succeed in a test that is worthless in the real world. Its parameters don't match.", ">\n\nThe best way to educate children is to teach them skills and strategies that will actually serve them in the workplace of the future. \nChatGPT already has reached the point of replacing humans (See Buzzfeed news). If ChatGPT can take the test or do the homework then what value is that education going to be to these students? Especially older students will quickly see rote memorization as a waste of time and so yes they probably will cheat if they have the opportunity. Trying to force these things to be “learned” and prove that knowledge by brute force banning things is going to be a costly uphill battle.", ">\n\nWhat if we modify how essays are written by students, by asking them to include citations (which is something ChatGPT can’t do)?\nWe can’t stop new tools from making old methods obsolete. But we can focus on enhancing critical thinking of students in a stepwise manner. When a new tool is created, think about how you can adapt rather than resist it.", ">\n\nWhy not just train an ai to spot ai written papers?", ">\n\nWhat about gradually putting more emphasis on oral assignments?", ">\n\nEverything you said makes perfect sense...IF the goal was to teach children simply how to write the perfect standard essay. But that is a very limited way of viewing education and what its real goal is. The real goal of education is to teach children how to think. To come up with the right questions, not just the right answers. In a world where a \"good enough\" essay on literally anything can be conjured as if by magic by a machine, what's the actual value of that exercise now? For a very long time teachers have used the essay as a way to evaluate how a person thinks. Now that a machine can write it for you, we need new ways to evaluate how students think. That's the real task we are facing. Fuck the essay, just like we ditched the slide rule for calculators and later computers, etc. Tools change but the real game remains the same: Think for yourself!", ">\n\nI'd say the best way would be to accept the reality of changing technology and reevaluating the approach we have towards education as a whole.\nGranted, I'd say that's only one half of the picture: reassessing how we conceive if jobs and labour in the face of increasing automation goes along with that, and I think neither really works without the other.\nBottom line is that human labour is more and more obsolete as time goes on, so human jobs will be less and less in demand (I'd argue moving away from a capitalistic system is the right call, but even if you don't, automation is still an incentive).\nSince a large part of the incentive of our current education system is \"prepare you for a job\" I think the whole thing is going to fall short in light of these kinds of systems developing.\nTheres lots of people now who pursue knowledge as a project of passion, rather than a means to an end, and I think moving to a system that supports and encourages that kind of ambition is the way to go.", ">\n\nI disagree. We should learn to use the tools we have efficiently. Otherwise you are not learning for your career but for some professors ego", ">\n\nThat’s not “education in the era of ChatGPT.” That’s education in the era before ChatGPT while we figure out what the world with ChatGPT will look like so we have some idea of what to do with it.\nThat’s also not “educating,” that’s just “assessment.” Assessment is simply a measuring system for education. As long as you think of the acquisition of knowledge and skill as requiring knowledge regurgitation and skill performance in isolation and divorced from context/individualized, then you’re going to end up at necessitating a kind of geofenced, Luddite assessment model. The training itself predicates the assessment method. How we assess is defined by how we teach, and vice versa.\nThe best assessment method to gauge understanding is, and always has been, conversation.\nAll we need to do is pair assessment with regular conversation between qualified teacher and student to determine if personal comprehension is present. Not an interview, not an interrogation — conversation. Problem solving performance contexts are also great revealer of internalized knowledge and skill.\nChatGPT is a relative nonissue if your approach to assessment is at all human.\nIt’s only a problem when you’re trying to mechanize and dehumanized education. “Rigorous” does not mean “mechanical.” We are going to have to trust the professional, knowledge- and skill-assessing judgements of humans who already know and can do.\nEducation reverts to having more emphasis on apprenticeship and mentorship models, where the relationship itself is part of the learning process. \n(The “accountability!” cranks are gonna love that…)", ">\n\nI have a strong suspicion that discussions like this, while very interesting, will be obsolete long before any changes can actually be implemented in schools. In fact, I'm pretty sure schools will be gone entirely in the near future.\nAs of right now, you can be taught almost any subject by an exceptionally well-spoken, fast and infinitely patient teacher called GPT to a university level, if not higher. Try it right now - go ask GPT to explain the political situation that allowed Alexander the Great to conquer Persia, or ask it to explain the raytracing algorithm. If there's a part you don't understand, ask it to clarify. You'll be amazed how accessible it makes advanced topics.\nNow, how long before we have VR software with a realistic-looking AI teacher, with an AI-generated voice, who can do the same thing, but respond to students' voices and use body language and visual demonstrations? Five years?\nHow long after that before this tech is cheap, and of such high quality that sending your kids to school will be a worse education?\nNow in, say, 20 years, we could have an AI system that takes a DNA sample, analyses a students genotype to understand what subjects they will be naturally good at, what education approaches will be most successful, and continuously improves its model of the student's behavior by observing them. It crafts a decades-long education journey tailored to the individual, and accompanies them the entire way.\nTeachers, as far as they've existed so far, don't have a chance.", ">\n\nAre you trying to test someone or teach them?\nIf the latter, why do you care about cheating? This reminds me of the ol' teachers who used to restrict calculators because \"you won't always have a calculator with you.\"", ">\n\nYou forget that for 99% of homework students could just copy each other's work. Having the answers out in the world accessible is not a new problem. You just make homework a small part of the grades and you make sure students understand it's important to actually do it or they won't do well on the tests.", ">\n\nThere are so many people that can’t do the basic math examples you mentioned somewhere and they went to school at a time when there were no calculators.\nOn the other hand I was allowed to use calculators in school pretty much the moment I left elementary school and I am really quite good at math even without assistance.\nTool usage is one of humanities key features and trying to work against it instead of finding ways to incorporate new technology into school and life seems backwards.", ">\n\nIronically the teacher will have to use an AI to decipher the \"hand written\" assignments.", ">\n\nYou can't force people to learn.", ">\n\nWhat about teaching how to think rather than how to memorize? Just a thought 💭", ">\n\nThey need to get rid of homework, and have students do their work while they're at school. It's awful, they just pile it on, even if a class only has a little homework that day, there's like 6 or 7 classes so it's a nightmare for students. Seems like the only way to prevent cheating is have them do work in class, so I hope for the students sake, they do that.", ">\n\nI’ll throw my idea into the ring, though we’re still a few years off from this technology:\nWe should have students interact with AI tutors that can prompt them questions and point out details. Then they can collaborate on assignments, and the AI tutor can give feedback and suggest snippets. The AI can evaluate their work and their engagement with the material.", ">\n\nOne of Transformers main applications is in search. Ie you get a set of embeddings you can compare the pairwise distances between embedding and get a list of scores that tell you which embeddings are most similar to the input. \nEssentially tools like google are made to reduce the search space for a given query collect likely links and then rerank the most likely results. \nChatgpt basically does this in a more direct way of searching through a space of potential responses. Basically trained on a task to predict next token given the previous tokens or fill in a mask\nTransformers permeate everything students use from the recommendation algorithms on TikTok Facebook, YouTube to search systems in google. \nIn my opinion students should absolutely not be taught to fear these tools tho I do agree they be tested in constrained environments to challenge them. Current systems should not be used to learn unless you have a clear understanding and are willing to check every word and check your reasoning. Future systems will be much better though so this problem isn’t going anywhere. \nIf anything there should be a push to make these ideas more interpretable to a younger audience and give them the tools to navigate an increasingly complex market of ideas. They should be aware of the limitations and how when they use a piece of software their actions and the actions of those around them are influencing what they see next. \nIt should be used and taught with rigor. \nIt’s programming 2.0", ">\n\nDude no; \nChatGPT is the computer. \nDo you want to be the education system that banned the computer and then wondered why all the other education systems output modern tech workers, while your education system kept outputting chimney sweeps and car factory workers?", ">\n\nHW only exists to make students practice, and generally is worth less than 20% of the grade in a class. If a student chooses to use chat GPT to bypass it then that’s the student’s loss.\nUltimately exams are what schools use to evaluate a students knowledge and I don’t think that’s going to change anytime soon", ">\n\nThere are already programs that check if something was written by an AI or not. Also no student I know actually uses chatGPT for major assignments because chatGPT doesn’t know every text to ever be published so it doesn’t understand the context, and most of the time will just bullshit an answer that’s incorrect.\nEveryone I know that uses chatGPT for school do so for either for assignments so small and simple that it doesn’t make sense to quarantine, or they use it as a more advanced google that can answer questions more accurately than a search engine could, essentially just saving time.\n(most) students are using chatGPT largely as a productivity and time management tool rather than to cheat.", ">\n\nThis is like saying “in the age of calculators, the only way to ensure kids learn maths is to ban calculators in school”. If looked at correctly, chatgpt is an effect multiplier, learning just has to be rejigged to have kids learn to do things that they can’t simply ask chatgpt to do for them.", ">\n\nLess course work and more exams is the future in a world with chatGPT.", ">\n\nChatGPT will be a big no issue soon. I work in a research field and this was something we worried about last year. As of now there are multiple tools and even more being developed that catch the use of ChatGPT. There has been research published that list ChatGPT as a co-author, but for most research, and use by students, it will simply be forbidden and will easily be caught as well. The program does well but it has a particular style that can be caught. Again it will be a non-issue soon.", ">\n\nThis is like forbidding people to use a calculator because it can give you the result instant. A better way is to teach them how to use the calculator, because its here now and won't go away. Same with GPT. Children can learn way better/faster with ChatGPD if used correctly. Imaging having a private teacher for free which helps you learning every time of the day.", ">\n\nLet me ask you this. If ChatGPT could complete a students whole assignment, what would that student have learned from doing that assignment on their own that won’t simply be replaced with ChatGPT by a employer in the future?\nEven if ChatGPT doesn’t replace workers for a decade, why teach students skills that will inevitably be replaced and leave said students jobless in a decade?\nChatGPT won’t only be used in the workforce either. Linus Tech Tips has a video showing how ChatGPT can help people learn new skills and do troubleshooting on their own. If I remember correctly, he manages to completely build a pc by only strictly following what ChatGPT tells him to. It even managed to suggest the best parts for that computers specific use case. It was nowhere near perfect, but in the future it will get there.\nSince ChatGPT is such a useful tool in the workforce and at home, I think it’s crucial we teach students how to use it instead of banning them from it. Maybe students should be given a problem and tasked to use ChatGPT to find the solution or have students attempt to learn a new topic with ChatGPT. I’m not a teacher, I just thought of those examples of the top of my head. I’m sure qualified teachers could think of better assignments than me.\nI could see ChatGPT helping a mechanic diagnose an issue so the mechanic could spend more time fixing the problem rather than diagnosing and I can think of a few examples in other jobs as well where ChatGPT will help a worker be more efficient and save more time.\nI think, if anything, we’re setting students up for failure by not teaching them about these tools that will take over the workforce and help in everyday life." ]
> It “fairs” extremely well? Maybe some additional time spent observing ChatGPT could actually benefit some	[ "/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^\| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.", ">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?", ">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.", ">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?", ">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.", ">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?", ">\n\nYou mean a grade?", ">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication", ">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.", ">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)", ">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.", ">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.", ">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.", ">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.", ">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?", ">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.", ">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.", ">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.", ">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.", ">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.", ">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.", ">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.", ">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.", ">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.", ">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.", ">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.", ">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.", ">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.", ">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use", ">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.", ">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.", ">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.", ">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.", ">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.", ">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.", ">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.", ">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).", ">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.", ">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.", ">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.", ">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.", ">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.", ">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.", ">\n\n\nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \n\nWhy? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it. \n\nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \n\nWhy? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? \nLet's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project. \n\nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.\n\nTotally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator.", ">\n\nFor the most part, knowledge workers perform a given amount of work in a given amount of hours, and the number of them hired by a company is TotalHoursNeeded/NumHoursPerEmployee. E.g. if you have 100 manyears of work to get done in a typical year, you employ 100 people.\nChat GPT isn't going to \"replace\" people wholesale, because as you say someone still needs to supervise it. But it looks to be on track to increase the productivity of programmers (can write a first draft of code and finds many of the bugs instantly). \nSame for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones. \nSo now the TotalNeeded is decreased by some percentage, let's say 10% to start. Now you only need 90 human programmers to do that same work. With 25% efficiency gain, you need 75. With 50%, 50. Etc. \nOr take translation jobs. Today, an editor spends roughly 3 minutes per word editing machine translated text, and 1 minute per word editing human-translated text. As long as editors are more expensive per hour than first translation people, it still makes sense much of the time to hire translators, because the software isn't free. \nBut the graph of machine translation \"efficiency\" is trending towards taking the same amount of time to edit as a human translator. As soon as that's hit, there's literally no reason to hire human translators, only editors. \nAnd if the editing time goes down to 30 seconds/word because of further AI assistance to the editor, you only need half as many of those.", ">\n\nThere is currently two better solutions being worked on - one of which is already being used to some degree. \nThe first is ChatGPT developers themselves making moves to make AI written works to be identified by \"watermark\" or similar. I don't thi k this one has taken effect at all yet. \nAnother is by a separate dev team that allows teachers to use software to determine the amount of an essay, for example, that is written by AI what the likelihood of any one sentence or paragraph to have been written by AI. This allows the teachers to use discretion when determining if the student used the AI in a way that they find acceptable or not. This way instead kf running from the scary AI educators can actually utilize tyhe AI with students to help them develop their writing and other communications.", ">\n\nWhat about kids with transportation issues? When I was in school I knew kids that drove almost an hour each way to get there. I certainly couldn’t have asked my parents to drop everything to take me all the way to school so I could do my homework if I forgot. Bus schedules? Do you think schools want to waste more money by burning more gas for extra routes? I understand where you’re coming from, but for a fair amount of children—especially in poorer, more rural areas—that getting to school and back is such a delicate balancing act that such a thing would just punish them.", ">\n\nI've seen a few key things from academics testing out ChatGPT (I have not signed up myself):\n\nIt tends to produce confident, convincing nonsense. It doesn't actually understand what it's writing about, and I hear it shows.\nIt makes up citations. Real authors in the field, real journals... but made-up titles. Things like that, since, again, it doesn't actually understand citations.\n\nThis suggests that, for assignments requiring the demonstration of genuine, in-depth understanding, and not merely the ability to summarize facts, ChatGPT will fail.\nA similar example that you bring up in the comments is programming cheat sheets into calculators - but for well-designed engineering exams (including the licensure exams, at least in the US), cheat sheets are fine and often either allowed or provided. A well-designed exam tests the ability to apply principles, not knowledge of equations, so a cheat sheet is harmless, or even allows the exam to work better (since people aren't distracted with memorizing equations).", ">\n\nThere are three criticisms that I have of this approach. \n\n\nShould we not teach to the environment that we live in? Yes, education often imposes arbitrary constraints like time tests but for research and reports why not let people use and work around all resources? If you can work around chat gpt to work efficiently, then do it. You learn what it can and can’t do and how to use it effectively as a tool. \n\n\nCan chatGPT on it’s own actually write a good essay? From what I have seen it can pull together a few sources. It can generally write fluff based on other things that it has seen. But it struggles to write analysis. It can’t interrogate a source or make value judgements. It could be useful for doing some filler or providing ideas but if to do an actual report, I think it would be insufficient. \n\n\nAn assignment that can be done using chatgpt is probably boring. Here I am writing an essay for no reason other than I find it interesting to discuss this topic. Perhaps, we arent giving students interesting enough assignments or we are overloading them to the point that they don’t have the time to engage? If chatGPT turns out to be an issue maybe it’s more of an indictment of the structures and norms of education.", ">\n\n\n\nhomework in the form of essays, take home tests, coding assignments, would be completed on school grounds. \n\n\nCongratulations, you've invented the \"cram school\".\nI'd recommend reading through your post again and actually thinking about the things you've said. Because essentially, you're merely advocating for the wholesale elimination of homework and for education outside of that to remain totally unchanged. It's almost literally, \"Make the school day 30% longer\".\nMy solution to the \"problem\" of students potentially using ChatGPT to cheat on homework: I don't think you need a hilariously convoluted system of homework \"boiler rooms\" redolent of national security apparatus, that requires schools to adopt ruinously expensive and disruptive technological and administrative changes.\nIt would be sufficient if we institute a system whereby teachers are encouraged to, let's say... \"test\" their students, whether by regular written exams or by talking to them in what I'll call \"classes\", to ensure they understand the material they've been assigned to learn.\nThis method ensures that students cannot use AI homework bots to coast through classes (since they'll literally be found out the very next class), and has the added benefit of not adding three hours to every teacher's day.", ">\n\nWhat about pen and ink?", ">\n\narguably I can just copy a ChatGPT output by hand. So I think that is a first level measure, but not a complete solution.", ">\n\nIt's a better solution than prison just because the curriculum can't keep up with technology.\nWhen calculators arrived on everyone's phone and everyone's pocket did you advocate for the same solution? Unlikely, so why only now with this system?", ">\n\nWell I did and I was. When I was studying engineering in the 80s we routinely could not arrive at exams with a calculator. Even then calculators were programmable enough to allow students to write cheat sheets in calculator memory.\nIt forced us to memorize equations, principals of engineering, and independent thinking. I’m a better engineer because I did.", ">\n\nSo you're what, almost 60? And you think what's best for children is to be like you? Don't you think you may be a bit out of touch?\nAlso, your view was about K12 students, not engineering students.", ">\n\nNo. As I replied, leaning on tools as a crutch all your life will limit your ability and function as a human. For example, you could argue that basic math isn’t necessary. As matter of fact that was an argument years ago with the advent of calculators.\nHowever, humans should be able to exist and functions without a digital crutch. You should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator. You should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google. There are basic elements of duration necessary since we are all still wet grey matter.", ">\n\n\nYou should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator\n\nBut why?\n\nYou should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google\n\nAgain, why?\nWhere do you get your \"should\" from?\nI have basically all human knowledge in my hand, every equation or conversion I'll ever need day to day, even every language I'll likely ever encounter. Why shouldn't I leave my brain free to think about what it wants and to use my incredible resource as and when it's needed?\nDo you envision some Saw-like situation where you're locked to a wall and need to solve maths equations at pain of death?", ">\n\nThe less you use your brain the less likely your body is to maintain it. Our body functions through a use or lose it principle. Just look people who lose movement function/muscle just by being bedridden for a long time. Our brain is not different.\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.", ">\n\nIs wasting resources on process you can deletage outside not using your brain? You free up that space to put to what you decide is important.\n\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.\n\nThe weakest man with a gun can take out the strongest bodybuilder.", ">\n\nAnd if you decide Tik tok and Netflix are important? How do you think that will affect the cognitive ability of kids?\nI didn't mention strength nor physical strength. And even then the strongest man with a gun will probably take out the weakest man with a gun.(An actual fair comparison)", ">\n\nCouldn't chatgpt (or somesuch AI) be asked \"Hey - did you write this?\" and nip this sort of thing in the bud?", ">\n\nNo, Chat GPT doesn't remember everything it's said, the potential things it could say are huge and even if someone wrote something that Chat GPT might say, it could be a coincidence.", ">\n\nWell, strike that idea then.\nStill though - there must be some way to use AI to deal with this. \"set a thief to catch a thief\" and all that.", ">\n\nChat GPT (and most generative AIs) use GANs to generate content. \nIn laymen's terms (and extremely simplified as it's above my level of understanding) a GAN is 2 AI systems competing against each other, a creator AI that creates content and a checker AI that decides if the content was genuine or made by the other AI. \nSo any automated way to tell if it's AI generated can be built into the checker AI in future versions and the creator AI will learn to avoid whichever features the checker AI is spotting.", ">\n\nChatGPT is just another mechanism for reducing the need for labor, and it's not going away. \nChildren will need to be educated in both how to make effective use of it (for as long as it's not sufficient to completely eliminate mental labor), and also in the ethics of not using it. Always forcing them to write in airgapped places isn't going to do that, it just makes them resent it. \nAlso: essay writing on a scale needed to really learn long-form writing is not very amenable to doing in an airgapped classroom, because honestly we're not using dead-tree sources of information anymore already, so doing their research pretty much has to include doing it on line. \nBut really: laborious manual long-form essay writing is going to go the way of penmanship and looking things up in a library as an unneeded skill very quickly. We need children to adjust to that reality of the modern world rather than pretending it will go away. \nPeople are still needed (for now) to do the important part of writing essays without doing the laborious bit that ChatGPT automates anyway: deciding what to write, and editing it into a convincing and well-written form. \nForcing kids to spend a lot of time learning how to write the basic bulk part of essays is a lot like teaching them how to make buggy-whips in shop class: a pointless exercise. \nIt would be better to give them all prewritten ChatGPT essays and have them learn the limitations and capabilities.", ">\n\nIs ChatGPT really that much more effective than just grabbing things off Wikipedia? I was asking it things about elections and it was just Wikipedia from two years ago", ">\n\nThe answer is NEVER to limit technology. It’s to teach the new generation how to use that technology to achieve the same goal.\nIt’s pointless to ban computers and teach the memorization of dates in history class. It’s much more productive to teach online research skills so that if an individual needs to know the date of a particular moment in history, they can reliably Google it.\nChatGPT is the same. It renders writing essays as pointless, and it necessitates the teachers to adapt to new teaching styles, such as teaching the skills on how best to manipulate ChatGPT to return the information you need.", ">\n\nI was banned from using programming calculators when I studied engineering in the 80s during exams. It forced the students to all be on the same level playing field and forced us to actually know the equations, their applications, and the processes of whatever engineering course I was taking.\nIt made us better engineers.", ">\n\nHow does handicapping you make you a better engineer? If I put you and an engineer trained with technology in the same room together, who do you think would accomplish the task faster?", ">\n\nThe handicapped engineer, easily. The point of forcing students to actually learn the material is so that they understand how to reason about the underlying processes when they need to troubleshoot something going wrong, and understand the tradeoffs between approaches and how to select the best one for the task. \nOnce you understand things deeply you don't actually need training in doing things quickly because it's immediately intuitive how to apply a technological process to save time. The guy that leaned heavily on technology is basically fucked if he has to use a technique or software that he didn't specifically train on since he doesn't have a good foundation to abstract from. It would be more appropriate to call this person a technician.", ">\n\nThe purpose of calculators is to do the menial part of the work, not to solve whole processes. The engineer that learned with calculators likely knows how to select the right process to solve a problem, but uses the calculator to do the math faster and with fewer errors.", ">\n\nAt the college level, we’re not talking about tools to add and multiply. We’re talking about tools like Wolfram Alpha that do entire symbolic manipulations for you. If I took a calculus class and on all the assignments used Wolfram Alpha to find derivatives, do you think I would have learned anything?\nThat is what ChatGPT is doing for essays", ">\n\nThere are things called pencil and paper.", ">\n\nAs I said, this is the first line defense. However as I already commented to another user. I can simply hand copy ChatGPT output. Essentially not doing my own independent research, writing, coding, and studying.", ">\n\nWhy don't you consider that research? \nThe first source was the best. It's incredibly efficient research IMO.", ">\n\nThe idea of tool removal has always been flawed. From calculators to chat GPT and beyond. If your test is so flimsy that a simple tool invalidates it then the test is poorly built. Test shouldn't be simple busywork tasks, they should require thinking, problem solving, complex thought. If it's just a game of memorization that can be cheated by answers on a paper, you've built a bad test.\nover memorization (which is what our current school systems teach) is not only unhelpful, but also harmful. We live in an era of wikipedia being a reliable source, of vast access to tools both online and phsycial. We should be teaching kids they should do the work but with the help of those tools, not despite them.\nThe main issue with your argument is that based on what you've said, i can assume you think the current school system is a good one but so many studies have shown that at least here in the US, the school systems are some of the worst in the world. It's this memorize, ignore tools, singular focus mentality that plays such a big role.\nIf we were more creative with education, incorporating tool utilization into the learning process, we'd likely have a major improvement to our educational successes. I could go on about how the education system prefers certain kinds of students over others, and how many students are left behind simply because they don't learn like other kids and are therefore punished, but I won't. All I'll say is that more restrictions on how and what kids learn isn't going to help them learn more or better.\nand in 15 years when chat GPT is a part of daily life in every single company on the planet in some way or another (which I'm beyond certain it will be), kids who were taught how to properly utilize it will have just such a huge advantage in the workforce over those who weren't", ">\n\nRather than attempt to find ways to prevent new technology from interfering with existing pedagogy, shouldn't we review and revise pedagogy as new technology develops? \nIf a chat AI program can write these things, what is the point of having humans repeatedly do the same work? We don't expect people to use an abacus when doing math, or limit their research to what's in the library card catalogue, or require printed paper publications as essay resources; we adapted to the calculator, and to the internet and search engines. So too should we adapt to things like ChatGPT, not by trying to pretend it doesn't exist, but by finding ways to incorporate it into a more holistic approach to learning.\nRather than chain kids to an airgapped room on school grounds outside of school hours to do homework that's of dubious educational value in the first place, we should take this as an opportunity to refocus schooling on in-class engagement and direct instruction. ChatGPT and programs like it are showing us yet another thing we as humans can outsource to our technology, so why struggle to do things in a more difficult and inefficient way?", ">\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\nIn addition, AI is only as good as the data it is fed. You must still be able to do the work on your own to analyze when the AI is giving valid outputs (garbage in, garbage out). This is especially true, when AI runs the risks of being owned or operated by those with a specific agenda. Can you imagine the trouble that would result if people relied on AI to determine who to vote for, but someone was able to pay the operators to have the AI promote them?\nRelying on AI to do our work for us is a distillation of an appeal to authority fallacy on a large scale (if the AI says it, it must be true).", ">\n\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\n\nThis is something I worry about A LOT when it comes to AI. Our collective understanding of the subjects that we usually classify as \"the humanities\" is constantly evolving as we learn more, and especially as a more diverse set of people are allowed to study, research and put forth opinions and arguments.\nImagine if students were outsourcing all their history, psychology, sociology and philosophy homework to a chatbot with a 1950s understanding of those subjects.\nImagine doctors outsourcing psych patient diagnoses to a chatbot with the same understanding.\nOn an arguably less \"serious\" but still critically important moral and political topic, imagine if all/most videogame art was outsourced to an AI engine with a 1990s sensibility for female characters. Same for all kinds of representation and diversity.\nHow about politics and political science in general... ha!\nEtc, etc etc.\nIt is NOT the case that we already have discovered all the true answers to the big questions, and we can merely turn to a \"knowledge calculator\" like ChatGPT to spit out the truth.\nEven if AI can pretty accurately reflect the discourse of the day, as it is currently understood and accepted, our collective knowledge and culture will stagnate if we do not actively participate in developing it, and we will all pay the price for that.", ">\n\nThese are all moralistic arguments that ultimately don’t mean anything.", ">\n\nI would say they are more epistemic arguments, which do matter greatly in the context of education (which is what the op was referring to).", ">\n\nAre any of these things mentioned actually realistic concerns? Someone is going to train an AI bot to generate 90s female art characters with big tits?\nNo. Lol and even if someone did, who cares?", ">\n\nConsidering how many people believe obviously fake stories that have no supporting evidence (and in spite of contrary evidence), yes, I believe they are very real concerns.\nIf an AI says we should use Brawndo in farming because its got what plants crave (electrolytes), we should probably be able to justify it with reasoning beyond \"the AI says so.\"", ">\n\nWho is suggesting we do anything “just because an AI said so”? \nDo you read books and think everything in it is true “because the book says so”?", ">\n\nHow do you determine if what the book/ai said is false?\nYou would typically do it through a process of research and discovery.\nPeoples' ability to do research and discovery will be greatly diminished if we rely on AI to do those things for us (which is what the previous posters were suggesting).\nTherefore, reliance on AI will lead to us losing the ability to discern if the results of what the AI is saying is correct.", ">\n\nWhat? Lol that doesn’t make any sense at all. \nIt is not like if we use AI then all previous knowledge is simply forgotten or lost. It’s all still there.", ">\n\nForcing homework at school makes that \"not homework\", and this approach has never worked. You cant reject change, it never works. Every time there has been a game changing event, people adapted. Those who tried to reject change disappeared. Horse carriages disappeared from roads because something else replaced it. Some people supposedly rejected progress, but they are lying to themselves, they still use modern tech or services at some point.\nAnyway, the change is here, and it made essays irrelevant. Time to find another way to test people skills. \nGive it a little time though. ChatGPT costs a ginormous amount of money to run and will not stay free for long either.", ">\n\nIt's not just ChatGPT, the actual innovation is not the interface but lies in algorithms that can recreate natural language of similar quality with smaller data samples. There are also OpenSource datasets like ThePile, etc. so even if OpenAI moves to a paid model (and they will, quickly. You can already sign up to be first in line for the API), there will be other free providers.", ">\n\nHaving coded AIs, I disagree. ChatGPT is a regular trained AI. The novelty is the scale of the operation, and the fact there is a public API.\nNo one ever spent that much money on resources to run and train an AI publicly. I am pretty sure google has done something similar with user data sets to make their search engine and general ecosystem.\nI wish there was a way to have algorithms working with smaller data sets and produce similar results, but it kind of does not work that way.", ">\n\nThere are already tools to identify ChatGPT generated texts. Such tools will improve as another use of literally the same technology.\nJust as teachers submit essays for identifying plagiarism, teachers will submit essays for identifying AI-generated text. \nFurther, a focus could change from grading students on what they know to grading students' ability to ask meaningful, content-based questions about the subject. After all, knowing facts isn't particularly valuable as a skill. Integrating facts and discovering valuable questions is still something that remains a uniquely human skill. And is where people will continue to add value as AI becomes more advanced.", ">\n\nStudents have always been able to 'cheat' on work done outside the classroom, by copying or somehow getting others to do their work for them, even before the internet. Yes with more advanced modern technology it is easier but this has always been a concern. \nAs regular learning environments like supervised classrooms are already 'quarantined' in the way you descibe you are fundementally just suggesting an increase in learning hours as a supplement to homework. This has been suggested by many for various reasons but it would overall cuase more issues than it fixes. It increases work load on teachers and administrators, stretching already thin educational budgets, and forces increased mental strain on children. It would limit their ability to do other recreational and out of ciriculum activities. This would be disruptive and controlling when the quantity of teaching and learning time that children recive is already considered sufficiant for a good education.", ">\n\nHell the only thing stopping me from using ChatGPT regularly for my work now is that it's always at capacity.", ">\n\nApply tests that are hand written, doesnt matter how a person obtains the knowledge, actually learning the subject is most important thing.", ">\n\nThere is no amount of ChatGPT that could influence a good old oral exam where the teacher evaluates the understanding via a little chat.", ">\n\nSo tired of this view. We shouldn’t be fighting technology. Teach kids to use the resources they have to find answers. It’s such a waste of 12 years of school, teaching kids to memorize facts and follow rules. \nInstead, every test should be open book and reward the best answers. Ask the kids to show their work or explain their thought process so we reward understanding of a topic rather than memorization of steps or text.", ">\n\n20 years ago, there were already homework communities and learn groups. Even from the publishers of school books and with free access to tutors. Ok, they didnt do the final homework for me, but gave me a great starting point.\nBeing the kid who transcribes a wiki page was already stupid back then when others could call you out:\nBut I guess the actual problem is lack of digital literacy with teachers, they're always 5-10 years behind.", ">\n\nIf you are testing skills that can be done by free tools on the internet, then you are testing irrelevant skills.\nThe best way to educate kids is to test for skills they need, not skills they objectively don't.\nI was able to witness a couple of universities adapt to tests during quarantine, and follow reports on how the new methods would be used going forward.\nThe results where thus:\nMass offline testing is incredibly cost efficient (one examiner per ~300 students), but the tests results are a poor indicator of real world performance.\nOne to One testing is incredibly expensive, but can, when done right, test actual understanding and performance.\nBoth will be useful, of course. Mass testing is most useful when used in a way that students aren't incentivized to cheat, such as when framed as practice.", ">\n\nOne of the upsides of needing to prevent this kind of tech from cheating assignments is that teachers should focus on having students be able to do their homework at school. (As a former teacher, we were trying to do this already- no more than 15 min of homework per class). \nI dont think we need to do quite what you say. We just need to limit outside electronics and have in-person classrooms or computer labs with programs designed to be AI-proof. \nI have ALWAYS believed that cell phones/internet watches should be stored in school lockers (at most) and never allowed anywhere else on campus during the school day. If anyone needs to contact the students they contact the desk who relays their message/other need. Many schools already do this.", ">\n\n∆\nI agree with this. It would help.", ">\n\nThank you!", ">\n\nThat is utterly pointless.\nThere is no reason to limit the available tools.\nThis just reminds me of the entire \"you won't have a calculator wherever you go\" argument.\nSchool should instead put a focus on responsibly using available tools.", ">\n\nAnd if students choose to use them irresponsibly, what should schools do?\nAnd can you please define what constitutes responsible use? Because despite knowing about plagiarism, people still copy and paste from the internet. Perfect abstinence is easier than perfect moderation after all.", ">\n\nJust return to hand written essays and have more oral exams.", ">\n\n∆l\nActually of all comments having oral exams compliments my post and I agree with you. Enjoy the delta.", ">\n\nIn a Faraday cage.", ">\n\nIf children can just generate work with ChatGPT, it simply shows that children are not being taught anything valuable. (Once ChatGPT responses can be generated in almost unlimited amounts at very low cost, it necessarily means those responses are of low value)\nInstead shouldn't we be teaching children to provide more valuable outcomes that ChatGPT can't replicate?", ">\n\nBeing able to do on your own what ChatGPT does with access to an immense amount of data and processing power is valuable. The actual writing isn't valuable, obviously, but it would be silly to expect it to be. It's just a side effect of practice, you spend time making things of little or no value to build up the skills you'll need to make something that actually matters. That's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\nI think you'd be hard pressed to teach a class of children to outperform ChatGPT in writing without ever asking them to write something that could also be done via AI. What would that even look like?", ">\n\n\nThat's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\n\nIt is a problem. That is why I hated math class until 2nd year of university.", ">\n\nDid you start discovering novel math results in your second year of university, or was that just the point at which you first encountered problems you found interesting, despite the fact that someone else had already solved them before? Thinking back the class you didn't hate, do you think it should be removed if someone can construct an AI to give all the answers you gave?", ">\n\nThis is only a method for evaluating students, it doesn't do anything to educate them.\nChatgpt is potentially a great tool for education but trying to find complex ways around it for homework is pointless. When testing fact retention is required using school/university computers with no web browsing makes sense. For any other test or situation it's a tool that might be used.", ">\n\nI understand OPs concern. That said, I do not think you can create true quarantine for a multitude of reasons. \nThe biggest one is probably time. I worked through high school and university. Because I lived in the middle of nowhere it was about a 30 min drive to high school and then an hour to uni. Having to stay at these quarantine zones to complete assignments would have been hell on my schedule, car, and wallet. \nYou said it yourself, if someone is going to cheat, they will cheat. If I had to do the work in a quarantine zone, what exactly stops me from doing the actual work on my computer at home, printing it all out, and then just writing that into the computer at the quarantine zone? Unless you want to try having students write an entire essay in their hour long class? There has to be a point where they go home and then this falls apart.", ">\n\nThere are already lots of ways to cheat in homework and mostly our steps to deal with that amount to the honour system, and by university level, automated plagiarism detection (which can be quite easily avoided). The point you \"won't argue\" that people will cheat if given the opportunity is probably the actual crux of what's wrong with your suggestion and the part that needs a big [citation needed]. Concluding that the majority of people are fundamentally dishonest is a big assumption to handwave away. \nIf you want an education, cheating is stupid. Ultimately you might get a paper qualification out of it but you'll have actually learned nothing - you won't hold up long against someone who has done it properly when you actually have to apply the skills. Or if you do, then the assignments weren't that crucial to the learning in the first place.", ">\n\nMany of the things I learned in school were largely irrelevant. I couldn't use a calculator to do long division. After I passed those early elementary school years I never did long division again. I wouldn't even argue learning the long division algo is mandatory. It's nice to have learnt it I guess, but I spent way too many hours on it. I can see learning fundamentals of essay writing, etc, are great, but why can't we just evolve to learn more effective things in life? ChatGPT should be used as a tool, not viewed as a detriment.", ">\n\nIt'd suggest that the best way to educate them is to embrace ChatGBT and teach them to use it well. Your method is a bit like teaching kids to do math without calculators or accounting without excel or financial software. There is some value, but it runs out very quickly and you're at a social and competetive disadvantage for taking some archane principled approach to education that is more of a defense of \"how we used to do it\".\nI'm old enough to remember when using a word processor was sometime forbidden for reasons of fairness - that seems entirely disconnected now from doing good work and it's almost hard to envision the thought process of those who thought everything should be hand written for students. \nIsn't the kid who is amazing at utilizing tools like ChatGBT going to do much better in the world than the one who does not? Your idea of \"proper education\" would easily regress back to needing to do all subjects scrawled in dirt with sticks and grunted in non-standardized language.", ">\n\nOR, chatgpt will be a great boon to the entire education system:\nIncreased accessibility: ChatGPT and other AI-powered systems can provide education to individuals who otherwise would not have access to it, due to geographical, financial, or other barriers.\n\nPersonalized learning: ChatGPT can provide personalized education experiences based on each student's strengths, weaknesses, and learning style.\n\n24/7 availability: ChatGPT can operate 24/7, providing students with access to education at any time, anywhere, which can be especially beneficial for those with demanding schedules or for individuals in remote areas.\n\nScalability: ChatGPT can provide education to a large number of students simultaneously, which could help to address the shortage of teachers and resources in some areas.\n\nCost-effectiveness: ChatGPT can be a more cost-effective option for providing education compared to traditional methods, as it does not require physical classrooms or teachers.\n\nImproved student engagement: ChatGPT can provide interactive, engaging learning experiences that can hold students' attention and foster deeper learning.\n\n--Source: ChatGPT", ">\n\nThere a lots of places where texts and exams are “open book”. The questions have to be written differently, and the point is that you’re not testing someone’s ability to memorize, but rather their ability to understand. This is a more difficult test to write, so in theory AI could force education to improve since everyone would a virtual tutor with them at all times.", ">\n\nI'm a teacher and I've been thinking a lot about this the last couple months. Changes within the education system/curriculum/syllabus/retraining of teachers will take far too long to keep up with the ease of access to, and success of, chatgpt and AI in general. \nThe only solution moving forward both short and long term is to embrace it, there is no stopping it now anyway and if we don't all want to be out of a job in 5 years we need to - \n- demonstrate feasible/moral/ethical use of such tools\n- create more opportunities for collaborative learning/hands-on/problem solving tasks and ones that increase communication skills between peers. \nHow this applies to each individual, specific task will vary and must require a lot of creativity and trial and error, but I think relying too heavily on your department of education to handle this (or most 'boots on the ground' problems) will ultimately only degrade a students experience and ability for learning.", ">\n\nI'm with you on what you're trying to accomplish. I just don't know that it's the \"best\" way. \nFor instance, how is homework performed in school superior to trusting the kids to learn the material, which would then be tested by oral exam? And yes, I do believe that asking a student to verbally explain a topic is a really good way to gauge mastery.", ">\n\nThere is not a hope in hell that we'll go back to hand written stuff. That's not how technology works. As the music companies. There are better ways to show you know a subject, for sure, than the current out of-date ones. That's for sure. Have you ever taken an on-line exam?", ">\n\nI argue to let them use chatGPT as it will be their future. This is similar to my generations \"you'll never walk around with a calculator so learn math.\" The future children will grow into a society where work means utilizing AI tech to help them thrive. If chatGPT helps them write an essay, and it's good, it means they're using resources. I agree, however, that we should supplement this with actual reading and writing.", ">\n\nI would argue that most of time that ChatGPT and similar technologies is going to be an issue is in 8-12 grade and college.\nThis technology is not going away, and it's only going to improve. Personally I would treat it like calculators, audio books and spell check.\nTech kids how to use the technology properly. Sure it's somewhat handy to calculate numbers in your head, but having the ability to do math in your head does not give you much of an advantage in today's world and not being able to doesn't hurt you much. But it's still critical to know formulas and how to peace together algebraic statements and word problems. \nKnowing how to spell properly is less important than knowing proper word usage - most times you're writing something it can be spell-checked in real time. Sure it's \"terrible that today's kids...\" don't know how to spell... but it's not going to affect their career. \nEnter ChatGPT - same thing. Should I spend the time to write a white paper on the changing advertising landscape to alert my boss about the a potential seismic shift in advertising revenue, or should I ask ChatGPT to write it? As a user I have to understand its limits and potential copywrite issues, but even more importantly how to verify that what it writes is correct and targeting the right audience. Is data from before 2020 going to be recent and accurate enough for my thesis? How do I supplement the discussion with real-world data? \nThis is our new reality. We should be learning how to use the tools properly, not trying to figure out to lock it down (which frankly makes as much sense as locking down the use of calculators or spell check).", ">\n\nI think there are already apps in place that are able to detect AI generated text (Read this article).\nAlso, I think a better method would be to simply have a database of ChatGPT (could be encrypted) generated text and make it available to already existing software that is use to detect plagiarism (this is just an exemple amongst many)", ">\n\nFrankly I don’t think high schoolers and below should be given homework or tests at all. One learns magnitudes better through exploration as opposed to mindless repetition. Engage with these kids intellectually, make them free thinking Athenians, not bags of knowledge of which they have no idea how to use.\nDoes it not surprise anyone that we train people for over a decade in intellect yet hardly have any intellectuals?", ">\n\nI would argue that society would be better off spending resources on teaching children how to use this tool effectively. Knowing how to get the right answer is what matters in this world.", ">\n\nThen answer this: Well why learn math at all? Seriously.\nWhy learn he concept of subtraction let alone division? I could and society has argued that with the advent of digital calculators. \nYet we learn it. \nLater we use calculators to take the mundane and already known processes to the next level. We abstract away the mundane. \nAs a EE having worked and am working on products you may be using right now to read this, when I develop new silicon and chips I don’t break out Karnaugh maps and lay down circuit using a T square and stencils of gates. But I sure the hell know what I’m doing and expect the tools to do for me. \nTeaching fundamentals of reading, writing, arithmetic, essays, research are just that fundamental.", ">\n\nI’d argue that the vast majority don’t need anything beyond basic math anyways. \nGo ask the average adult if they know the quadratic equation and what it means and you’d probably be disappointed.", ">\n\nChatGPT is here to stay, you'd better advocate for teaching people how to make the most of it and use it wisely instead of pretending it doesn't exist.\nOne of my favourite teachers always told students to use the best tools there are.", ">\n\nI think it depends completely on the topic. In my field of study, it’s fairly easy to come up with term paper assignments that the bot would be useless for. \nLooking back at the paper I wrote last year, I don’t see how any current bot could have helped, as it isn’t able to read or summarize specific sources (yet?).\nAn example of the type of assignments we get is “Discuss the role of state capacity in x and x conflict in light of (specific research paper)‘s dimensions of state capacity - do your findings confirm the findings of (authors), why or why not?\nThis way of combining literature made it difficult even for me to be on top of it, as there were no sources that had attempted this exact combination - it has to be original. \nAlso, I find it’s the best way to learn, because you have to rely on your own judgement and there are no shortcuts, even asking the professor was unhelpful as he wasn’t too familiar with the details.", ">\n\nThis is not the best way.", ">\n\n\nThese homework rooms would have Internet connected computers for use but access to ChatGPT would be filtered and blocked.\n\nThis wouldn't be feasible, there's far too many roundabout ways to still access ChatGPT. Security measures like domain filtering are just unproductive games of whack-a-mole. \nEdit: removed all the other stuff I wrote, as those points have already been mentioned in previous top-level comments.", ">\n\nHomework shouldn’t be the go-to method of “education” to begin with. Imo Universities should focus on the integral part of education: the lectures. Tools like chatgpt can help student who are actually interested in a subject to learn more easily about it, but whether students actually learn anything or not from a class won’t change regardless of if work is authentic or copied from an AI\nSource: I’m a college student and have had experience in both supervised environments where we had to do work without the use of computers/phones and solely-online environments where many students cheated", ">\n\nWhile this could work, it is not necessarily the best way in terms of accessibility and of learning in general. \nFirst, students with ADHD and certain other conditions may not necessarily be the able to be productive at all times, or at the specific time they have to work on those computers, especially if those computers are not in an environment ideal to that specific person. It would also not be very feasible to give students enough time on these computers to complete the bigger assignments and essays. \nSecond, while ChatGPT is quite advanced, it simply works by looking at language patterns and often gets factual details incorrect. For example, with bigger coding problems, it tries to import modules that do not exist or call on functions that it has not defined. In literature, it cannot analyze texts on much more than a surface level. I will admit it can use secondary sources for textual analysis, however, it is unable to come up with a clear thesis on its own. \nAdditionally, take-home tests can be just as easily cheated on using a normal Google search, and usually test thinking skills rather than understanding and knowledge. \nFinally, essay-writing and other types of assignments are generally not ideal for learning as they are only one type of skill, and university professors are recognizing this. Not only do they not work for all learning styles, but they are only used so commonly because of tradition. University professors are structuring assignments around ways that are innovative enough that ChatGPT is unable to work on them. Along with requiring specific readings which the AI might not have access to, and citing of all sources (which has always been a requirement that the AI might trip up on), they are also going away from the traditional essay format into others. For example, I am studying literature, a relatively essay-heavy field, and in my past few courses I have been asked to analyze comics (which the AI cannot read), edit other people’s essays and articles (from past courses), create a mock syllabus or lesson plan with justifications for each reading, and create annotated bibliographies as a stepping stone to an essay. All of these not only require different skills and encourage different types of learning and research but are quite difficult for an AI to do. \nAll in all, while your suggestion is great, the very nature of the AI and the fact that it exists at all is perhaps a sign that the best course of action is to rework the way we think about evaluation. After all, if an evaluation is such that an AI can complete it without the ability to actually think (it works by using observed language patterns), then perhaps the evaluation is not ideal.", ">\n\nI bet teachers and people thought the same thing about calculators when they came out or 1990s internet. AI bots like chat GPT are just a tool.", ">\n\nAll this effectively does is train kids to accomplish goals of a type that do not exist in the real world in a situation they will never realistically encounter. A better goal is adjusting testing criteria to account for this.\nThere might be very specific sets of knowledge for which rote memorization is appropriate, and for those, the air gapped testing may be appropriate. But I believe those are the exception rather than the rule. By and large, teaching kids to effectively utilize the tools that will be available to them is what we should be doing.", ">\n\nImagine learning where the only books are hand written.\nThe printing press took out a huge amount of repetitive labor in the learning process.\nAI/ChatGPT stands a good chance of removing a huge amount knowledge labor which stands between an idea and the end product. Learning to use the AI to best effect the Idea->End Product Chain is more important than worrying about memorizing formulae we will likely never need to remember. \nThe effort to restrict ChatGPT is just education system worrying about their Cheese Being Moved.", ">\n\nThis just doesn't make any sense to me. You're arguing that we shouldn't allow students to use tools they would have at their disposal in a real working environment, and for what? Why wouldn't you want students to use every tool at their disposal? How exactly is handicapping them helping them to understand the coursework?\nA much better approach would be to fundamentally alter how we teach to better prepare them for the workforce. Encouraging collaboration and creative problem solving skills is much more practical and effective.", ">\n\nChatGPT may pass the Bar, but I highly doubt it will replace lawyers or other professionals. \nThe whole point of credentialing is to drive accountability. Anyone can study the law and cite precedent without a law degree. Actually representing a client in a court of law requires oversight and knowledge. ChatGPT isn't perfect - it will make mistakes from time to time. So who is responsible when it makes a mistake? When is a client (who is not familiar with the law) supposed to know that a mistake has been made on their behalf? For this reason, until ChatGPT is literally perfect you're always going to need a credentialed professional to review the output.\nFor the record, I think ChatGPT is wonderful. But it's a tool that people will use, not a full-fledged replacement for professionals. My employer (a Fortune 500 company) has already rejected its use for internal projects. IT has the website blocked.", ">\n\nThe kids that are educated without its use will fall behind in business when faced with kids that are using it to its fullest extent.\nYou've successfully made an argument for people to succeed in a test that is worthless in the real world. Its parameters don't match.", ">\n\nThe best way to educate children is to teach them skills and strategies that will actually serve them in the workplace of the future. \nChatGPT already has reached the point of replacing humans (See Buzzfeed news). If ChatGPT can take the test or do the homework then what value is that education going to be to these students? Especially older students will quickly see rote memorization as a waste of time and so yes they probably will cheat if they have the opportunity. Trying to force these things to be “learned” and prove that knowledge by brute force banning things is going to be a costly uphill battle.", ">\n\nWhat if we modify how essays are written by students, by asking them to include citations (which is something ChatGPT can’t do)?\nWe can’t stop new tools from making old methods obsolete. But we can focus on enhancing critical thinking of students in a stepwise manner. When a new tool is created, think about how you can adapt rather than resist it.", ">\n\nWhy not just train an ai to spot ai written papers?", ">\n\nWhat about gradually putting more emphasis on oral assignments?", ">\n\nEverything you said makes perfect sense...IF the goal was to teach children simply how to write the perfect standard essay. But that is a very limited way of viewing education and what its real goal is. The real goal of education is to teach children how to think. To come up with the right questions, not just the right answers. In a world where a \"good enough\" essay on literally anything can be conjured as if by magic by a machine, what's the actual value of that exercise now? For a very long time teachers have used the essay as a way to evaluate how a person thinks. Now that a machine can write it for you, we need new ways to evaluate how students think. That's the real task we are facing. Fuck the essay, just like we ditched the slide rule for calculators and later computers, etc. Tools change but the real game remains the same: Think for yourself!", ">\n\nI'd say the best way would be to accept the reality of changing technology and reevaluating the approach we have towards education as a whole.\nGranted, I'd say that's only one half of the picture: reassessing how we conceive if jobs and labour in the face of increasing automation goes along with that, and I think neither really works without the other.\nBottom line is that human labour is more and more obsolete as time goes on, so human jobs will be less and less in demand (I'd argue moving away from a capitalistic system is the right call, but even if you don't, automation is still an incentive).\nSince a large part of the incentive of our current education system is \"prepare you for a job\" I think the whole thing is going to fall short in light of these kinds of systems developing.\nTheres lots of people now who pursue knowledge as a project of passion, rather than a means to an end, and I think moving to a system that supports and encourages that kind of ambition is the way to go.", ">\n\nI disagree. We should learn to use the tools we have efficiently. Otherwise you are not learning for your career but for some professors ego", ">\n\nThat’s not “education in the era of ChatGPT.” That’s education in the era before ChatGPT while we figure out what the world with ChatGPT will look like so we have some idea of what to do with it.\nThat’s also not “educating,” that’s just “assessment.” Assessment is simply a measuring system for education. As long as you think of the acquisition of knowledge and skill as requiring knowledge regurgitation and skill performance in isolation and divorced from context/individualized, then you’re going to end up at necessitating a kind of geofenced, Luddite assessment model. The training itself predicates the assessment method. How we assess is defined by how we teach, and vice versa.\nThe best assessment method to gauge understanding is, and always has been, conversation.\nAll we need to do is pair assessment with regular conversation between qualified teacher and student to determine if personal comprehension is present. Not an interview, not an interrogation — conversation. Problem solving performance contexts are also great revealer of internalized knowledge and skill.\nChatGPT is a relative nonissue if your approach to assessment is at all human.\nIt’s only a problem when you’re trying to mechanize and dehumanized education. “Rigorous” does not mean “mechanical.” We are going to have to trust the professional, knowledge- and skill-assessing judgements of humans who already know and can do.\nEducation reverts to having more emphasis on apprenticeship and mentorship models, where the relationship itself is part of the learning process. \n(The “accountability!” cranks are gonna love that…)", ">\n\nI have a strong suspicion that discussions like this, while very interesting, will be obsolete long before any changes can actually be implemented in schools. In fact, I'm pretty sure schools will be gone entirely in the near future.\nAs of right now, you can be taught almost any subject by an exceptionally well-spoken, fast and infinitely patient teacher called GPT to a university level, if not higher. Try it right now - go ask GPT to explain the political situation that allowed Alexander the Great to conquer Persia, or ask it to explain the raytracing algorithm. If there's a part you don't understand, ask it to clarify. You'll be amazed how accessible it makes advanced topics.\nNow, how long before we have VR software with a realistic-looking AI teacher, with an AI-generated voice, who can do the same thing, but respond to students' voices and use body language and visual demonstrations? Five years?\nHow long after that before this tech is cheap, and of such high quality that sending your kids to school will be a worse education?\nNow in, say, 20 years, we could have an AI system that takes a DNA sample, analyses a students genotype to understand what subjects they will be naturally good at, what education approaches will be most successful, and continuously improves its model of the student's behavior by observing them. It crafts a decades-long education journey tailored to the individual, and accompanies them the entire way.\nTeachers, as far as they've existed so far, don't have a chance.", ">\n\nAre you trying to test someone or teach them?\nIf the latter, why do you care about cheating? This reminds me of the ol' teachers who used to restrict calculators because \"you won't always have a calculator with you.\"", ">\n\nYou forget that for 99% of homework students could just copy each other's work. Having the answers out in the world accessible is not a new problem. You just make homework a small part of the grades and you make sure students understand it's important to actually do it or they won't do well on the tests.", ">\n\nThere are so many people that can’t do the basic math examples you mentioned somewhere and they went to school at a time when there were no calculators.\nOn the other hand I was allowed to use calculators in school pretty much the moment I left elementary school and I am really quite good at math even without assistance.\nTool usage is one of humanities key features and trying to work against it instead of finding ways to incorporate new technology into school and life seems backwards.", ">\n\nIronically the teacher will have to use an AI to decipher the \"hand written\" assignments.", ">\n\nYou can't force people to learn.", ">\n\nWhat about teaching how to think rather than how to memorize? Just a thought 💭", ">\n\nThey need to get rid of homework, and have students do their work while they're at school. It's awful, they just pile it on, even if a class only has a little homework that day, there's like 6 or 7 classes so it's a nightmare for students. Seems like the only way to prevent cheating is have them do work in class, so I hope for the students sake, they do that.", ">\n\nI’ll throw my idea into the ring, though we’re still a few years off from this technology:\nWe should have students interact with AI tutors that can prompt them questions and point out details. Then they can collaborate on assignments, and the AI tutor can give feedback and suggest snippets. The AI can evaluate their work and their engagement with the material.", ">\n\nOne of Transformers main applications is in search. Ie you get a set of embeddings you can compare the pairwise distances between embedding and get a list of scores that tell you which embeddings are most similar to the input. \nEssentially tools like google are made to reduce the search space for a given query collect likely links and then rerank the most likely results. \nChatgpt basically does this in a more direct way of searching through a space of potential responses. Basically trained on a task to predict next token given the previous tokens or fill in a mask\nTransformers permeate everything students use from the recommendation algorithms on TikTok Facebook, YouTube to search systems in google. \nIn my opinion students should absolutely not be taught to fear these tools tho I do agree they be tested in constrained environments to challenge them. Current systems should not be used to learn unless you have a clear understanding and are willing to check every word and check your reasoning. Future systems will be much better though so this problem isn’t going anywhere. \nIf anything there should be a push to make these ideas more interpretable to a younger audience and give them the tools to navigate an increasingly complex market of ideas. They should be aware of the limitations and how when they use a piece of software their actions and the actions of those around them are influencing what they see next. \nIt should be used and taught with rigor. \nIt’s programming 2.0", ">\n\nDude no; \nChatGPT is the computer. \nDo you want to be the education system that banned the computer and then wondered why all the other education systems output modern tech workers, while your education system kept outputting chimney sweeps and car factory workers?", ">\n\nHW only exists to make students practice, and generally is worth less than 20% of the grade in a class. If a student chooses to use chat GPT to bypass it then that’s the student’s loss.\nUltimately exams are what schools use to evaluate a students knowledge and I don’t think that’s going to change anytime soon", ">\n\nThere are already programs that check if something was written by an AI or not. Also no student I know actually uses chatGPT for major assignments because chatGPT doesn’t know every text to ever be published so it doesn’t understand the context, and most of the time will just bullshit an answer that’s incorrect.\nEveryone I know that uses chatGPT for school do so for either for assignments so small and simple that it doesn’t make sense to quarantine, or they use it as a more advanced google that can answer questions more accurately than a search engine could, essentially just saving time.\n(most) students are using chatGPT largely as a productivity and time management tool rather than to cheat.", ">\n\nThis is like saying “in the age of calculators, the only way to ensure kids learn maths is to ban calculators in school”. If looked at correctly, chatgpt is an effect multiplier, learning just has to be rejigged to have kids learn to do things that they can’t simply ask chatgpt to do for them.", ">\n\nLess course work and more exams is the future in a world with chatGPT.", ">\n\nChatGPT will be a big no issue soon. I work in a research field and this was something we worried about last year. As of now there are multiple tools and even more being developed that catch the use of ChatGPT. There has been research published that list ChatGPT as a co-author, but for most research, and use by students, it will simply be forbidden and will easily be caught as well. The program does well but it has a particular style that can be caught. Again it will be a non-issue soon.", ">\n\nThis is like forbidding people to use a calculator because it can give you the result instant. A better way is to teach them how to use the calculator, because its here now and won't go away. Same with GPT. Children can learn way better/faster with ChatGPD if used correctly. Imaging having a private teacher for free which helps you learning every time of the day.", ">\n\nLet me ask you this. If ChatGPT could complete a students whole assignment, what would that student have learned from doing that assignment on their own that won’t simply be replaced with ChatGPT by a employer in the future?\nEven if ChatGPT doesn’t replace workers for a decade, why teach students skills that will inevitably be replaced and leave said students jobless in a decade?\nChatGPT won’t only be used in the workforce either. Linus Tech Tips has a video showing how ChatGPT can help people learn new skills and do troubleshooting on their own. If I remember correctly, he manages to completely build a pc by only strictly following what ChatGPT tells him to. It even managed to suggest the best parts for that computers specific use case. It was nowhere near perfect, but in the future it will get there.\nSince ChatGPT is such a useful tool in the workforce and at home, I think it’s crucial we teach students how to use it instead of banning them from it. Maybe students should be given a problem and tasked to use ChatGPT to find the solution or have students attempt to learn a new topic with ChatGPT. I’m not a teacher, I just thought of those examples of the top of my head. I’m sure qualified teachers could think of better assignments than me.\nI could see ChatGPT helping a mechanic diagnose an issue so the mechanic could spend more time fixing the problem rather than diagnosing and I can think of a few examples in other jobs as well where ChatGPT will help a worker be more efficient and save more time.\nI think, if anything, we’re setting students up for failure by not teaching them about these tools that will take over the workforce and help in everyday life.", ">\n\nYou’ll still have to pass a test. Relax." ]
> There’s just no way you can use ChatGPT to do all of your work for you and be successful at any moderately high level of academic pursuit. Not without learning the material yourself, and if you’ve done that, I don’t think it matters so much whether you used chatGPT and for what along the way. Frankly if you start our using chatGPT early in school, you won’t even be able to ask the right questions in the right way and include the necessary refinements to do more complex and demanding assignments down the road. Also, tests are still a thing aren’t they? ChatGPT doesn’t help you perform in person in a monitored environment - not in a way that would allow you to skip learning the material. I don’t really get this aspect of your cmv. As long as tests don’t allow access to ChatGPT, anyone who didn’t learn the material is going to be exposed..	[ "/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^\| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.", ">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?", ">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.", ">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?", ">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.", ">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?", ">\n\nYou mean a grade?", ">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication", ">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.", ">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)", ">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.", ">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.", ">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.", ">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.", ">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?", ">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.", ">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.", ">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.", ">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.", ">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.", ">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.", ">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.", ">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.", ">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.", ">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.", ">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.", ">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.", ">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.", ">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use", ">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.", ">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.", ">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.", ">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.", ">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.", ">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.", ">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.", ">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).", ">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.", ">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.", ">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.", ">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.", ">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.", ">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.", ">\n\n\nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \n\nWhy? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it. \n\nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \n\nWhy? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? \nLet's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project. \n\nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.\n\nTotally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator.", ">\n\nFor the most part, knowledge workers perform a given amount of work in a given amount of hours, and the number of them hired by a company is TotalHoursNeeded/NumHoursPerEmployee. E.g. if you have 100 manyears of work to get done in a typical year, you employ 100 people.\nChat GPT isn't going to \"replace\" people wholesale, because as you say someone still needs to supervise it. But it looks to be on track to increase the productivity of programmers (can write a first draft of code and finds many of the bugs instantly). \nSame for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones. \nSo now the TotalNeeded is decreased by some percentage, let's say 10% to start. Now you only need 90 human programmers to do that same work. With 25% efficiency gain, you need 75. With 50%, 50. Etc. \nOr take translation jobs. Today, an editor spends roughly 3 minutes per word editing machine translated text, and 1 minute per word editing human-translated text. As long as editors are more expensive per hour than first translation people, it still makes sense much of the time to hire translators, because the software isn't free. \nBut the graph of machine translation \"efficiency\" is trending towards taking the same amount of time to edit as a human translator. As soon as that's hit, there's literally no reason to hire human translators, only editors. \nAnd if the editing time goes down to 30 seconds/word because of further AI assistance to the editor, you only need half as many of those.", ">\n\nThere is currently two better solutions being worked on - one of which is already being used to some degree. \nThe first is ChatGPT developers themselves making moves to make AI written works to be identified by \"watermark\" or similar. I don't thi k this one has taken effect at all yet. \nAnother is by a separate dev team that allows teachers to use software to determine the amount of an essay, for example, that is written by AI what the likelihood of any one sentence or paragraph to have been written by AI. This allows the teachers to use discretion when determining if the student used the AI in a way that they find acceptable or not. This way instead kf running from the scary AI educators can actually utilize tyhe AI with students to help them develop their writing and other communications.", ">\n\nWhat about kids with transportation issues? When I was in school I knew kids that drove almost an hour each way to get there. I certainly couldn’t have asked my parents to drop everything to take me all the way to school so I could do my homework if I forgot. Bus schedules? Do you think schools want to waste more money by burning more gas for extra routes? I understand where you’re coming from, but for a fair amount of children—especially in poorer, more rural areas—that getting to school and back is such a delicate balancing act that such a thing would just punish them.", ">\n\nI've seen a few key things from academics testing out ChatGPT (I have not signed up myself):\n\nIt tends to produce confident, convincing nonsense. It doesn't actually understand what it's writing about, and I hear it shows.\nIt makes up citations. Real authors in the field, real journals... but made-up titles. Things like that, since, again, it doesn't actually understand citations.\n\nThis suggests that, for assignments requiring the demonstration of genuine, in-depth understanding, and not merely the ability to summarize facts, ChatGPT will fail.\nA similar example that you bring up in the comments is programming cheat sheets into calculators - but for well-designed engineering exams (including the licensure exams, at least in the US), cheat sheets are fine and often either allowed or provided. A well-designed exam tests the ability to apply principles, not knowledge of equations, so a cheat sheet is harmless, or even allows the exam to work better (since people aren't distracted with memorizing equations).", ">\n\nThere are three criticisms that I have of this approach. \n\n\nShould we not teach to the environment that we live in? Yes, education often imposes arbitrary constraints like time tests but for research and reports why not let people use and work around all resources? If you can work around chat gpt to work efficiently, then do it. You learn what it can and can’t do and how to use it effectively as a tool. \n\n\nCan chatGPT on it’s own actually write a good essay? From what I have seen it can pull together a few sources. It can generally write fluff based on other things that it has seen. But it struggles to write analysis. It can’t interrogate a source or make value judgements. It could be useful for doing some filler or providing ideas but if to do an actual report, I think it would be insufficient. \n\n\nAn assignment that can be done using chatgpt is probably boring. Here I am writing an essay for no reason other than I find it interesting to discuss this topic. Perhaps, we arent giving students interesting enough assignments or we are overloading them to the point that they don’t have the time to engage? If chatGPT turns out to be an issue maybe it’s more of an indictment of the structures and norms of education.", ">\n\n\n\nhomework in the form of essays, take home tests, coding assignments, would be completed on school grounds. \n\n\nCongratulations, you've invented the \"cram school\".\nI'd recommend reading through your post again and actually thinking about the things you've said. Because essentially, you're merely advocating for the wholesale elimination of homework and for education outside of that to remain totally unchanged. It's almost literally, \"Make the school day 30% longer\".\nMy solution to the \"problem\" of students potentially using ChatGPT to cheat on homework: I don't think you need a hilariously convoluted system of homework \"boiler rooms\" redolent of national security apparatus, that requires schools to adopt ruinously expensive and disruptive technological and administrative changes.\nIt would be sufficient if we institute a system whereby teachers are encouraged to, let's say... \"test\" their students, whether by regular written exams or by talking to them in what I'll call \"classes\", to ensure they understand the material they've been assigned to learn.\nThis method ensures that students cannot use AI homework bots to coast through classes (since they'll literally be found out the very next class), and has the added benefit of not adding three hours to every teacher's day.", ">\n\nWhat about pen and ink?", ">\n\narguably I can just copy a ChatGPT output by hand. So I think that is a first level measure, but not a complete solution.", ">\n\nIt's a better solution than prison just because the curriculum can't keep up with technology.\nWhen calculators arrived on everyone's phone and everyone's pocket did you advocate for the same solution? Unlikely, so why only now with this system?", ">\n\nWell I did and I was. When I was studying engineering in the 80s we routinely could not arrive at exams with a calculator. Even then calculators were programmable enough to allow students to write cheat sheets in calculator memory.\nIt forced us to memorize equations, principals of engineering, and independent thinking. I’m a better engineer because I did.", ">\n\nSo you're what, almost 60? And you think what's best for children is to be like you? Don't you think you may be a bit out of touch?\nAlso, your view was about K12 students, not engineering students.", ">\n\nNo. As I replied, leaning on tools as a crutch all your life will limit your ability and function as a human. For example, you could argue that basic math isn’t necessary. As matter of fact that was an argument years ago with the advent of calculators.\nHowever, humans should be able to exist and functions without a digital crutch. You should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator. You should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google. There are basic elements of duration necessary since we are all still wet grey matter.", ">\n\n\nYou should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator\n\nBut why?\n\nYou should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google\n\nAgain, why?\nWhere do you get your \"should\" from?\nI have basically all human knowledge in my hand, every equation or conversion I'll ever need day to day, even every language I'll likely ever encounter. Why shouldn't I leave my brain free to think about what it wants and to use my incredible resource as and when it's needed?\nDo you envision some Saw-like situation where you're locked to a wall and need to solve maths equations at pain of death?", ">\n\nThe less you use your brain the less likely your body is to maintain it. Our body functions through a use or lose it principle. Just look people who lose movement function/muscle just by being bedridden for a long time. Our brain is not different.\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.", ">\n\nIs wasting resources on process you can deletage outside not using your brain? You free up that space to put to what you decide is important.\n\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.\n\nThe weakest man with a gun can take out the strongest bodybuilder.", ">\n\nAnd if you decide Tik tok and Netflix are important? How do you think that will affect the cognitive ability of kids?\nI didn't mention strength nor physical strength. And even then the strongest man with a gun will probably take out the weakest man with a gun.(An actual fair comparison)", ">\n\nCouldn't chatgpt (or somesuch AI) be asked \"Hey - did you write this?\" and nip this sort of thing in the bud?", ">\n\nNo, Chat GPT doesn't remember everything it's said, the potential things it could say are huge and even if someone wrote something that Chat GPT might say, it could be a coincidence.", ">\n\nWell, strike that idea then.\nStill though - there must be some way to use AI to deal with this. \"set a thief to catch a thief\" and all that.", ">\n\nChat GPT (and most generative AIs) use GANs to generate content. \nIn laymen's terms (and extremely simplified as it's above my level of understanding) a GAN is 2 AI systems competing against each other, a creator AI that creates content and a checker AI that decides if the content was genuine or made by the other AI. \nSo any automated way to tell if it's AI generated can be built into the checker AI in future versions and the creator AI will learn to avoid whichever features the checker AI is spotting.", ">\n\nChatGPT is just another mechanism for reducing the need for labor, and it's not going away. \nChildren will need to be educated in both how to make effective use of it (for as long as it's not sufficient to completely eliminate mental labor), and also in the ethics of not using it. Always forcing them to write in airgapped places isn't going to do that, it just makes them resent it. \nAlso: essay writing on a scale needed to really learn long-form writing is not very amenable to doing in an airgapped classroom, because honestly we're not using dead-tree sources of information anymore already, so doing their research pretty much has to include doing it on line. \nBut really: laborious manual long-form essay writing is going to go the way of penmanship and looking things up in a library as an unneeded skill very quickly. We need children to adjust to that reality of the modern world rather than pretending it will go away. \nPeople are still needed (for now) to do the important part of writing essays without doing the laborious bit that ChatGPT automates anyway: deciding what to write, and editing it into a convincing and well-written form. \nForcing kids to spend a lot of time learning how to write the basic bulk part of essays is a lot like teaching them how to make buggy-whips in shop class: a pointless exercise. \nIt would be better to give them all prewritten ChatGPT essays and have them learn the limitations and capabilities.", ">\n\nIs ChatGPT really that much more effective than just grabbing things off Wikipedia? I was asking it things about elections and it was just Wikipedia from two years ago", ">\n\nThe answer is NEVER to limit technology. It’s to teach the new generation how to use that technology to achieve the same goal.\nIt’s pointless to ban computers and teach the memorization of dates in history class. It’s much more productive to teach online research skills so that if an individual needs to know the date of a particular moment in history, they can reliably Google it.\nChatGPT is the same. It renders writing essays as pointless, and it necessitates the teachers to adapt to new teaching styles, such as teaching the skills on how best to manipulate ChatGPT to return the information you need.", ">\n\nI was banned from using programming calculators when I studied engineering in the 80s during exams. It forced the students to all be on the same level playing field and forced us to actually know the equations, their applications, and the processes of whatever engineering course I was taking.\nIt made us better engineers.", ">\n\nHow does handicapping you make you a better engineer? If I put you and an engineer trained with technology in the same room together, who do you think would accomplish the task faster?", ">\n\nThe handicapped engineer, easily. The point of forcing students to actually learn the material is so that they understand how to reason about the underlying processes when they need to troubleshoot something going wrong, and understand the tradeoffs between approaches and how to select the best one for the task. \nOnce you understand things deeply you don't actually need training in doing things quickly because it's immediately intuitive how to apply a technological process to save time. The guy that leaned heavily on technology is basically fucked if he has to use a technique or software that he didn't specifically train on since he doesn't have a good foundation to abstract from. It would be more appropriate to call this person a technician.", ">\n\nThe purpose of calculators is to do the menial part of the work, not to solve whole processes. The engineer that learned with calculators likely knows how to select the right process to solve a problem, but uses the calculator to do the math faster and with fewer errors.", ">\n\nAt the college level, we’re not talking about tools to add and multiply. We’re talking about tools like Wolfram Alpha that do entire symbolic manipulations for you. If I took a calculus class and on all the assignments used Wolfram Alpha to find derivatives, do you think I would have learned anything?\nThat is what ChatGPT is doing for essays", ">\n\nThere are things called pencil and paper.", ">\n\nAs I said, this is the first line defense. However as I already commented to another user. I can simply hand copy ChatGPT output. Essentially not doing my own independent research, writing, coding, and studying.", ">\n\nWhy don't you consider that research? \nThe first source was the best. It's incredibly efficient research IMO.", ">\n\nThe idea of tool removal has always been flawed. From calculators to chat GPT and beyond. If your test is so flimsy that a simple tool invalidates it then the test is poorly built. Test shouldn't be simple busywork tasks, they should require thinking, problem solving, complex thought. If it's just a game of memorization that can be cheated by answers on a paper, you've built a bad test.\nover memorization (which is what our current school systems teach) is not only unhelpful, but also harmful. We live in an era of wikipedia being a reliable source, of vast access to tools both online and phsycial. We should be teaching kids they should do the work but with the help of those tools, not despite them.\nThe main issue with your argument is that based on what you've said, i can assume you think the current school system is a good one but so many studies have shown that at least here in the US, the school systems are some of the worst in the world. It's this memorize, ignore tools, singular focus mentality that plays such a big role.\nIf we were more creative with education, incorporating tool utilization into the learning process, we'd likely have a major improvement to our educational successes. I could go on about how the education system prefers certain kinds of students over others, and how many students are left behind simply because they don't learn like other kids and are therefore punished, but I won't. All I'll say is that more restrictions on how and what kids learn isn't going to help them learn more or better.\nand in 15 years when chat GPT is a part of daily life in every single company on the planet in some way or another (which I'm beyond certain it will be), kids who were taught how to properly utilize it will have just such a huge advantage in the workforce over those who weren't", ">\n\nRather than attempt to find ways to prevent new technology from interfering with existing pedagogy, shouldn't we review and revise pedagogy as new technology develops? \nIf a chat AI program can write these things, what is the point of having humans repeatedly do the same work? We don't expect people to use an abacus when doing math, or limit their research to what's in the library card catalogue, or require printed paper publications as essay resources; we adapted to the calculator, and to the internet and search engines. So too should we adapt to things like ChatGPT, not by trying to pretend it doesn't exist, but by finding ways to incorporate it into a more holistic approach to learning.\nRather than chain kids to an airgapped room on school grounds outside of school hours to do homework that's of dubious educational value in the first place, we should take this as an opportunity to refocus schooling on in-class engagement and direct instruction. ChatGPT and programs like it are showing us yet another thing we as humans can outsource to our technology, so why struggle to do things in a more difficult and inefficient way?", ">\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\nIn addition, AI is only as good as the data it is fed. You must still be able to do the work on your own to analyze when the AI is giving valid outputs (garbage in, garbage out). This is especially true, when AI runs the risks of being owned or operated by those with a specific agenda. Can you imagine the trouble that would result if people relied on AI to determine who to vote for, but someone was able to pay the operators to have the AI promote them?\nRelying on AI to do our work for us is a distillation of an appeal to authority fallacy on a large scale (if the AI says it, it must be true).", ">\n\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\n\nThis is something I worry about A LOT when it comes to AI. Our collective understanding of the subjects that we usually classify as \"the humanities\" is constantly evolving as we learn more, and especially as a more diverse set of people are allowed to study, research and put forth opinions and arguments.\nImagine if students were outsourcing all their history, psychology, sociology and philosophy homework to a chatbot with a 1950s understanding of those subjects.\nImagine doctors outsourcing psych patient diagnoses to a chatbot with the same understanding.\nOn an arguably less \"serious\" but still critically important moral and political topic, imagine if all/most videogame art was outsourced to an AI engine with a 1990s sensibility for female characters. Same for all kinds of representation and diversity.\nHow about politics and political science in general... ha!\nEtc, etc etc.\nIt is NOT the case that we already have discovered all the true answers to the big questions, and we can merely turn to a \"knowledge calculator\" like ChatGPT to spit out the truth.\nEven if AI can pretty accurately reflect the discourse of the day, as it is currently understood and accepted, our collective knowledge and culture will stagnate if we do not actively participate in developing it, and we will all pay the price for that.", ">\n\nThese are all moralistic arguments that ultimately don’t mean anything.", ">\n\nI would say they are more epistemic arguments, which do matter greatly in the context of education (which is what the op was referring to).", ">\n\nAre any of these things mentioned actually realistic concerns? Someone is going to train an AI bot to generate 90s female art characters with big tits?\nNo. Lol and even if someone did, who cares?", ">\n\nConsidering how many people believe obviously fake stories that have no supporting evidence (and in spite of contrary evidence), yes, I believe they are very real concerns.\nIf an AI says we should use Brawndo in farming because its got what plants crave (electrolytes), we should probably be able to justify it with reasoning beyond \"the AI says so.\"", ">\n\nWho is suggesting we do anything “just because an AI said so”? \nDo you read books and think everything in it is true “because the book says so”?", ">\n\nHow do you determine if what the book/ai said is false?\nYou would typically do it through a process of research and discovery.\nPeoples' ability to do research and discovery will be greatly diminished if we rely on AI to do those things for us (which is what the previous posters were suggesting).\nTherefore, reliance on AI will lead to us losing the ability to discern if the results of what the AI is saying is correct.", ">\n\nWhat? Lol that doesn’t make any sense at all. \nIt is not like if we use AI then all previous knowledge is simply forgotten or lost. It’s all still there.", ">\n\nForcing homework at school makes that \"not homework\", and this approach has never worked. You cant reject change, it never works. Every time there has been a game changing event, people adapted. Those who tried to reject change disappeared. Horse carriages disappeared from roads because something else replaced it. Some people supposedly rejected progress, but they are lying to themselves, they still use modern tech or services at some point.\nAnyway, the change is here, and it made essays irrelevant. Time to find another way to test people skills. \nGive it a little time though. ChatGPT costs a ginormous amount of money to run and will not stay free for long either.", ">\n\nIt's not just ChatGPT, the actual innovation is not the interface but lies in algorithms that can recreate natural language of similar quality with smaller data samples. There are also OpenSource datasets like ThePile, etc. so even if OpenAI moves to a paid model (and they will, quickly. You can already sign up to be first in line for the API), there will be other free providers.", ">\n\nHaving coded AIs, I disagree. ChatGPT is a regular trained AI. The novelty is the scale of the operation, and the fact there is a public API.\nNo one ever spent that much money on resources to run and train an AI publicly. I am pretty sure google has done something similar with user data sets to make their search engine and general ecosystem.\nI wish there was a way to have algorithms working with smaller data sets and produce similar results, but it kind of does not work that way.", ">\n\nThere are already tools to identify ChatGPT generated texts. Such tools will improve as another use of literally the same technology.\nJust as teachers submit essays for identifying plagiarism, teachers will submit essays for identifying AI-generated text. \nFurther, a focus could change from grading students on what they know to grading students' ability to ask meaningful, content-based questions about the subject. After all, knowing facts isn't particularly valuable as a skill. Integrating facts and discovering valuable questions is still something that remains a uniquely human skill. And is where people will continue to add value as AI becomes more advanced.", ">\n\nStudents have always been able to 'cheat' on work done outside the classroom, by copying or somehow getting others to do their work for them, even before the internet. Yes with more advanced modern technology it is easier but this has always been a concern. \nAs regular learning environments like supervised classrooms are already 'quarantined' in the way you descibe you are fundementally just suggesting an increase in learning hours as a supplement to homework. This has been suggested by many for various reasons but it would overall cuase more issues than it fixes. It increases work load on teachers and administrators, stretching already thin educational budgets, and forces increased mental strain on children. It would limit their ability to do other recreational and out of ciriculum activities. This would be disruptive and controlling when the quantity of teaching and learning time that children recive is already considered sufficiant for a good education.", ">\n\nHell the only thing stopping me from using ChatGPT regularly for my work now is that it's always at capacity.", ">\n\nApply tests that are hand written, doesnt matter how a person obtains the knowledge, actually learning the subject is most important thing.", ">\n\nThere is no amount of ChatGPT that could influence a good old oral exam where the teacher evaluates the understanding via a little chat.", ">\n\nSo tired of this view. We shouldn’t be fighting technology. Teach kids to use the resources they have to find answers. It’s such a waste of 12 years of school, teaching kids to memorize facts and follow rules. \nInstead, every test should be open book and reward the best answers. Ask the kids to show their work or explain their thought process so we reward understanding of a topic rather than memorization of steps or text.", ">\n\n20 years ago, there were already homework communities and learn groups. Even from the publishers of school books and with free access to tutors. Ok, they didnt do the final homework for me, but gave me a great starting point.\nBeing the kid who transcribes a wiki page was already stupid back then when others could call you out:\nBut I guess the actual problem is lack of digital literacy with teachers, they're always 5-10 years behind.", ">\n\nIf you are testing skills that can be done by free tools on the internet, then you are testing irrelevant skills.\nThe best way to educate kids is to test for skills they need, not skills they objectively don't.\nI was able to witness a couple of universities adapt to tests during quarantine, and follow reports on how the new methods would be used going forward.\nThe results where thus:\nMass offline testing is incredibly cost efficient (one examiner per ~300 students), but the tests results are a poor indicator of real world performance.\nOne to One testing is incredibly expensive, but can, when done right, test actual understanding and performance.\nBoth will be useful, of course. Mass testing is most useful when used in a way that students aren't incentivized to cheat, such as when framed as practice.", ">\n\nOne of the upsides of needing to prevent this kind of tech from cheating assignments is that teachers should focus on having students be able to do their homework at school. (As a former teacher, we were trying to do this already- no more than 15 min of homework per class). \nI dont think we need to do quite what you say. We just need to limit outside electronics and have in-person classrooms or computer labs with programs designed to be AI-proof. \nI have ALWAYS believed that cell phones/internet watches should be stored in school lockers (at most) and never allowed anywhere else on campus during the school day. If anyone needs to contact the students they contact the desk who relays their message/other need. Many schools already do this.", ">\n\n∆\nI agree with this. It would help.", ">\n\nThank you!", ">\n\nThat is utterly pointless.\nThere is no reason to limit the available tools.\nThis just reminds me of the entire \"you won't have a calculator wherever you go\" argument.\nSchool should instead put a focus on responsibly using available tools.", ">\n\nAnd if students choose to use them irresponsibly, what should schools do?\nAnd can you please define what constitutes responsible use? Because despite knowing about plagiarism, people still copy and paste from the internet. Perfect abstinence is easier than perfect moderation after all.", ">\n\nJust return to hand written essays and have more oral exams.", ">\n\n∆l\nActually of all comments having oral exams compliments my post and I agree with you. Enjoy the delta.", ">\n\nIn a Faraday cage.", ">\n\nIf children can just generate work with ChatGPT, it simply shows that children are not being taught anything valuable. (Once ChatGPT responses can be generated in almost unlimited amounts at very low cost, it necessarily means those responses are of low value)\nInstead shouldn't we be teaching children to provide more valuable outcomes that ChatGPT can't replicate?", ">\n\nBeing able to do on your own what ChatGPT does with access to an immense amount of data and processing power is valuable. The actual writing isn't valuable, obviously, but it would be silly to expect it to be. It's just a side effect of practice, you spend time making things of little or no value to build up the skills you'll need to make something that actually matters. That's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\nI think you'd be hard pressed to teach a class of children to outperform ChatGPT in writing without ever asking them to write something that could also be done via AI. What would that even look like?", ">\n\n\nThat's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\n\nIt is a problem. That is why I hated math class until 2nd year of university.", ">\n\nDid you start discovering novel math results in your second year of university, or was that just the point at which you first encountered problems you found interesting, despite the fact that someone else had already solved them before? Thinking back the class you didn't hate, do you think it should be removed if someone can construct an AI to give all the answers you gave?", ">\n\nThis is only a method for evaluating students, it doesn't do anything to educate them.\nChatgpt is potentially a great tool for education but trying to find complex ways around it for homework is pointless. When testing fact retention is required using school/university computers with no web browsing makes sense. For any other test or situation it's a tool that might be used.", ">\n\nI understand OPs concern. That said, I do not think you can create true quarantine for a multitude of reasons. \nThe biggest one is probably time. I worked through high school and university. Because I lived in the middle of nowhere it was about a 30 min drive to high school and then an hour to uni. Having to stay at these quarantine zones to complete assignments would have been hell on my schedule, car, and wallet. \nYou said it yourself, if someone is going to cheat, they will cheat. If I had to do the work in a quarantine zone, what exactly stops me from doing the actual work on my computer at home, printing it all out, and then just writing that into the computer at the quarantine zone? Unless you want to try having students write an entire essay in their hour long class? There has to be a point where they go home and then this falls apart.", ">\n\nThere are already lots of ways to cheat in homework and mostly our steps to deal with that amount to the honour system, and by university level, automated plagiarism detection (which can be quite easily avoided). The point you \"won't argue\" that people will cheat if given the opportunity is probably the actual crux of what's wrong with your suggestion and the part that needs a big [citation needed]. Concluding that the majority of people are fundamentally dishonest is a big assumption to handwave away. \nIf you want an education, cheating is stupid. Ultimately you might get a paper qualification out of it but you'll have actually learned nothing - you won't hold up long against someone who has done it properly when you actually have to apply the skills. Or if you do, then the assignments weren't that crucial to the learning in the first place.", ">\n\nMany of the things I learned in school were largely irrelevant. I couldn't use a calculator to do long division. After I passed those early elementary school years I never did long division again. I wouldn't even argue learning the long division algo is mandatory. It's nice to have learnt it I guess, but I spent way too many hours on it. I can see learning fundamentals of essay writing, etc, are great, but why can't we just evolve to learn more effective things in life? ChatGPT should be used as a tool, not viewed as a detriment.", ">\n\nIt'd suggest that the best way to educate them is to embrace ChatGBT and teach them to use it well. Your method is a bit like teaching kids to do math without calculators or accounting without excel or financial software. There is some value, but it runs out very quickly and you're at a social and competetive disadvantage for taking some archane principled approach to education that is more of a defense of \"how we used to do it\".\nI'm old enough to remember when using a word processor was sometime forbidden for reasons of fairness - that seems entirely disconnected now from doing good work and it's almost hard to envision the thought process of those who thought everything should be hand written for students. \nIsn't the kid who is amazing at utilizing tools like ChatGBT going to do much better in the world than the one who does not? Your idea of \"proper education\" would easily regress back to needing to do all subjects scrawled in dirt with sticks and grunted in non-standardized language.", ">\n\nOR, chatgpt will be a great boon to the entire education system:\nIncreased accessibility: ChatGPT and other AI-powered systems can provide education to individuals who otherwise would not have access to it, due to geographical, financial, or other barriers.\n\nPersonalized learning: ChatGPT can provide personalized education experiences based on each student's strengths, weaknesses, and learning style.\n\n24/7 availability: ChatGPT can operate 24/7, providing students with access to education at any time, anywhere, which can be especially beneficial for those with demanding schedules or for individuals in remote areas.\n\nScalability: ChatGPT can provide education to a large number of students simultaneously, which could help to address the shortage of teachers and resources in some areas.\n\nCost-effectiveness: ChatGPT can be a more cost-effective option for providing education compared to traditional methods, as it does not require physical classrooms or teachers.\n\nImproved student engagement: ChatGPT can provide interactive, engaging learning experiences that can hold students' attention and foster deeper learning.\n\n--Source: ChatGPT", ">\n\nThere a lots of places where texts and exams are “open book”. The questions have to be written differently, and the point is that you’re not testing someone’s ability to memorize, but rather their ability to understand. This is a more difficult test to write, so in theory AI could force education to improve since everyone would a virtual tutor with them at all times.", ">\n\nI'm a teacher and I've been thinking a lot about this the last couple months. Changes within the education system/curriculum/syllabus/retraining of teachers will take far too long to keep up with the ease of access to, and success of, chatgpt and AI in general. \nThe only solution moving forward both short and long term is to embrace it, there is no stopping it now anyway and if we don't all want to be out of a job in 5 years we need to - \n- demonstrate feasible/moral/ethical use of such tools\n- create more opportunities for collaborative learning/hands-on/problem solving tasks and ones that increase communication skills between peers. \nHow this applies to each individual, specific task will vary and must require a lot of creativity and trial and error, but I think relying too heavily on your department of education to handle this (or most 'boots on the ground' problems) will ultimately only degrade a students experience and ability for learning.", ">\n\nI'm with you on what you're trying to accomplish. I just don't know that it's the \"best\" way. \nFor instance, how is homework performed in school superior to trusting the kids to learn the material, which would then be tested by oral exam? And yes, I do believe that asking a student to verbally explain a topic is a really good way to gauge mastery.", ">\n\nThere is not a hope in hell that we'll go back to hand written stuff. That's not how technology works. As the music companies. There are better ways to show you know a subject, for sure, than the current out of-date ones. That's for sure. Have you ever taken an on-line exam?", ">\n\nI argue to let them use chatGPT as it will be their future. This is similar to my generations \"you'll never walk around with a calculator so learn math.\" The future children will grow into a society where work means utilizing AI tech to help them thrive. If chatGPT helps them write an essay, and it's good, it means they're using resources. I agree, however, that we should supplement this with actual reading and writing.", ">\n\nI would argue that most of time that ChatGPT and similar technologies is going to be an issue is in 8-12 grade and college.\nThis technology is not going away, and it's only going to improve. Personally I would treat it like calculators, audio books and spell check.\nTech kids how to use the technology properly. Sure it's somewhat handy to calculate numbers in your head, but having the ability to do math in your head does not give you much of an advantage in today's world and not being able to doesn't hurt you much. But it's still critical to know formulas and how to peace together algebraic statements and word problems. \nKnowing how to spell properly is less important than knowing proper word usage - most times you're writing something it can be spell-checked in real time. Sure it's \"terrible that today's kids...\" don't know how to spell... but it's not going to affect their career. \nEnter ChatGPT - same thing. Should I spend the time to write a white paper on the changing advertising landscape to alert my boss about the a potential seismic shift in advertising revenue, or should I ask ChatGPT to write it? As a user I have to understand its limits and potential copywrite issues, but even more importantly how to verify that what it writes is correct and targeting the right audience. Is data from before 2020 going to be recent and accurate enough for my thesis? How do I supplement the discussion with real-world data? \nThis is our new reality. We should be learning how to use the tools properly, not trying to figure out to lock it down (which frankly makes as much sense as locking down the use of calculators or spell check).", ">\n\nI think there are already apps in place that are able to detect AI generated text (Read this article).\nAlso, I think a better method would be to simply have a database of ChatGPT (could be encrypted) generated text and make it available to already existing software that is use to detect plagiarism (this is just an exemple amongst many)", ">\n\nFrankly I don’t think high schoolers and below should be given homework or tests at all. One learns magnitudes better through exploration as opposed to mindless repetition. Engage with these kids intellectually, make them free thinking Athenians, not bags of knowledge of which they have no idea how to use.\nDoes it not surprise anyone that we train people for over a decade in intellect yet hardly have any intellectuals?", ">\n\nI would argue that society would be better off spending resources on teaching children how to use this tool effectively. Knowing how to get the right answer is what matters in this world.", ">\n\nThen answer this: Well why learn math at all? Seriously.\nWhy learn he concept of subtraction let alone division? I could and society has argued that with the advent of digital calculators. \nYet we learn it. \nLater we use calculators to take the mundane and already known processes to the next level. We abstract away the mundane. \nAs a EE having worked and am working on products you may be using right now to read this, when I develop new silicon and chips I don’t break out Karnaugh maps and lay down circuit using a T square and stencils of gates. But I sure the hell know what I’m doing and expect the tools to do for me. \nTeaching fundamentals of reading, writing, arithmetic, essays, research are just that fundamental.", ">\n\nI’d argue that the vast majority don’t need anything beyond basic math anyways. \nGo ask the average adult if they know the quadratic equation and what it means and you’d probably be disappointed.", ">\n\nChatGPT is here to stay, you'd better advocate for teaching people how to make the most of it and use it wisely instead of pretending it doesn't exist.\nOne of my favourite teachers always told students to use the best tools there are.", ">\n\nI think it depends completely on the topic. In my field of study, it’s fairly easy to come up with term paper assignments that the bot would be useless for. \nLooking back at the paper I wrote last year, I don’t see how any current bot could have helped, as it isn’t able to read or summarize specific sources (yet?).\nAn example of the type of assignments we get is “Discuss the role of state capacity in x and x conflict in light of (specific research paper)‘s dimensions of state capacity - do your findings confirm the findings of (authors), why or why not?\nThis way of combining literature made it difficult even for me to be on top of it, as there were no sources that had attempted this exact combination - it has to be original. \nAlso, I find it’s the best way to learn, because you have to rely on your own judgement and there are no shortcuts, even asking the professor was unhelpful as he wasn’t too familiar with the details.", ">\n\nThis is not the best way.", ">\n\n\nThese homework rooms would have Internet connected computers for use but access to ChatGPT would be filtered and blocked.\n\nThis wouldn't be feasible, there's far too many roundabout ways to still access ChatGPT. Security measures like domain filtering are just unproductive games of whack-a-mole. \nEdit: removed all the other stuff I wrote, as those points have already been mentioned in previous top-level comments.", ">\n\nHomework shouldn’t be the go-to method of “education” to begin with. Imo Universities should focus on the integral part of education: the lectures. Tools like chatgpt can help student who are actually interested in a subject to learn more easily about it, but whether students actually learn anything or not from a class won’t change regardless of if work is authentic or copied from an AI\nSource: I’m a college student and have had experience in both supervised environments where we had to do work without the use of computers/phones and solely-online environments where many students cheated", ">\n\nWhile this could work, it is not necessarily the best way in terms of accessibility and of learning in general. \nFirst, students with ADHD and certain other conditions may not necessarily be the able to be productive at all times, or at the specific time they have to work on those computers, especially if those computers are not in an environment ideal to that specific person. It would also not be very feasible to give students enough time on these computers to complete the bigger assignments and essays. \nSecond, while ChatGPT is quite advanced, it simply works by looking at language patterns and often gets factual details incorrect. For example, with bigger coding problems, it tries to import modules that do not exist or call on functions that it has not defined. In literature, it cannot analyze texts on much more than a surface level. I will admit it can use secondary sources for textual analysis, however, it is unable to come up with a clear thesis on its own. \nAdditionally, take-home tests can be just as easily cheated on using a normal Google search, and usually test thinking skills rather than understanding and knowledge. \nFinally, essay-writing and other types of assignments are generally not ideal for learning as they are only one type of skill, and university professors are recognizing this. Not only do they not work for all learning styles, but they are only used so commonly because of tradition. University professors are structuring assignments around ways that are innovative enough that ChatGPT is unable to work on them. Along with requiring specific readings which the AI might not have access to, and citing of all sources (which has always been a requirement that the AI might trip up on), they are also going away from the traditional essay format into others. For example, I am studying literature, a relatively essay-heavy field, and in my past few courses I have been asked to analyze comics (which the AI cannot read), edit other people’s essays and articles (from past courses), create a mock syllabus or lesson plan with justifications for each reading, and create annotated bibliographies as a stepping stone to an essay. All of these not only require different skills and encourage different types of learning and research but are quite difficult for an AI to do. \nAll in all, while your suggestion is great, the very nature of the AI and the fact that it exists at all is perhaps a sign that the best course of action is to rework the way we think about evaluation. After all, if an evaluation is such that an AI can complete it without the ability to actually think (it works by using observed language patterns), then perhaps the evaluation is not ideal.", ">\n\nI bet teachers and people thought the same thing about calculators when they came out or 1990s internet. AI bots like chat GPT are just a tool.", ">\n\nAll this effectively does is train kids to accomplish goals of a type that do not exist in the real world in a situation they will never realistically encounter. A better goal is adjusting testing criteria to account for this.\nThere might be very specific sets of knowledge for which rote memorization is appropriate, and for those, the air gapped testing may be appropriate. But I believe those are the exception rather than the rule. By and large, teaching kids to effectively utilize the tools that will be available to them is what we should be doing.", ">\n\nImagine learning where the only books are hand written.\nThe printing press took out a huge amount of repetitive labor in the learning process.\nAI/ChatGPT stands a good chance of removing a huge amount knowledge labor which stands between an idea and the end product. Learning to use the AI to best effect the Idea->End Product Chain is more important than worrying about memorizing formulae we will likely never need to remember. \nThe effort to restrict ChatGPT is just education system worrying about their Cheese Being Moved.", ">\n\nThis just doesn't make any sense to me. You're arguing that we shouldn't allow students to use tools they would have at their disposal in a real working environment, and for what? Why wouldn't you want students to use every tool at their disposal? How exactly is handicapping them helping them to understand the coursework?\nA much better approach would be to fundamentally alter how we teach to better prepare them for the workforce. Encouraging collaboration and creative problem solving skills is much more practical and effective.", ">\n\nChatGPT may pass the Bar, but I highly doubt it will replace lawyers or other professionals. \nThe whole point of credentialing is to drive accountability. Anyone can study the law and cite precedent without a law degree. Actually representing a client in a court of law requires oversight and knowledge. ChatGPT isn't perfect - it will make mistakes from time to time. So who is responsible when it makes a mistake? When is a client (who is not familiar with the law) supposed to know that a mistake has been made on their behalf? For this reason, until ChatGPT is literally perfect you're always going to need a credentialed professional to review the output.\nFor the record, I think ChatGPT is wonderful. But it's a tool that people will use, not a full-fledged replacement for professionals. My employer (a Fortune 500 company) has already rejected its use for internal projects. IT has the website blocked.", ">\n\nThe kids that are educated without its use will fall behind in business when faced with kids that are using it to its fullest extent.\nYou've successfully made an argument for people to succeed in a test that is worthless in the real world. Its parameters don't match.", ">\n\nThe best way to educate children is to teach them skills and strategies that will actually serve them in the workplace of the future. \nChatGPT already has reached the point of replacing humans (See Buzzfeed news). If ChatGPT can take the test or do the homework then what value is that education going to be to these students? Especially older students will quickly see rote memorization as a waste of time and so yes they probably will cheat if they have the opportunity. Trying to force these things to be “learned” and prove that knowledge by brute force banning things is going to be a costly uphill battle.", ">\n\nWhat if we modify how essays are written by students, by asking them to include citations (which is something ChatGPT can’t do)?\nWe can’t stop new tools from making old methods obsolete. But we can focus on enhancing critical thinking of students in a stepwise manner. When a new tool is created, think about how you can adapt rather than resist it.", ">\n\nWhy not just train an ai to spot ai written papers?", ">\n\nWhat about gradually putting more emphasis on oral assignments?", ">\n\nEverything you said makes perfect sense...IF the goal was to teach children simply how to write the perfect standard essay. But that is a very limited way of viewing education and what its real goal is. The real goal of education is to teach children how to think. To come up with the right questions, not just the right answers. In a world where a \"good enough\" essay on literally anything can be conjured as if by magic by a machine, what's the actual value of that exercise now? For a very long time teachers have used the essay as a way to evaluate how a person thinks. Now that a machine can write it for you, we need new ways to evaluate how students think. That's the real task we are facing. Fuck the essay, just like we ditched the slide rule for calculators and later computers, etc. Tools change but the real game remains the same: Think for yourself!", ">\n\nI'd say the best way would be to accept the reality of changing technology and reevaluating the approach we have towards education as a whole.\nGranted, I'd say that's only one half of the picture: reassessing how we conceive if jobs and labour in the face of increasing automation goes along with that, and I think neither really works without the other.\nBottom line is that human labour is more and more obsolete as time goes on, so human jobs will be less and less in demand (I'd argue moving away from a capitalistic system is the right call, but even if you don't, automation is still an incentive).\nSince a large part of the incentive of our current education system is \"prepare you for a job\" I think the whole thing is going to fall short in light of these kinds of systems developing.\nTheres lots of people now who pursue knowledge as a project of passion, rather than a means to an end, and I think moving to a system that supports and encourages that kind of ambition is the way to go.", ">\n\nI disagree. We should learn to use the tools we have efficiently. Otherwise you are not learning for your career but for some professors ego", ">\n\nThat’s not “education in the era of ChatGPT.” That’s education in the era before ChatGPT while we figure out what the world with ChatGPT will look like so we have some idea of what to do with it.\nThat’s also not “educating,” that’s just “assessment.” Assessment is simply a measuring system for education. As long as you think of the acquisition of knowledge and skill as requiring knowledge regurgitation and skill performance in isolation and divorced from context/individualized, then you’re going to end up at necessitating a kind of geofenced, Luddite assessment model. The training itself predicates the assessment method. How we assess is defined by how we teach, and vice versa.\nThe best assessment method to gauge understanding is, and always has been, conversation.\nAll we need to do is pair assessment with regular conversation between qualified teacher and student to determine if personal comprehension is present. Not an interview, not an interrogation — conversation. Problem solving performance contexts are also great revealer of internalized knowledge and skill.\nChatGPT is a relative nonissue if your approach to assessment is at all human.\nIt’s only a problem when you’re trying to mechanize and dehumanized education. “Rigorous” does not mean “mechanical.” We are going to have to trust the professional, knowledge- and skill-assessing judgements of humans who already know and can do.\nEducation reverts to having more emphasis on apprenticeship and mentorship models, where the relationship itself is part of the learning process. \n(The “accountability!” cranks are gonna love that…)", ">\n\nI have a strong suspicion that discussions like this, while very interesting, will be obsolete long before any changes can actually be implemented in schools. In fact, I'm pretty sure schools will be gone entirely in the near future.\nAs of right now, you can be taught almost any subject by an exceptionally well-spoken, fast and infinitely patient teacher called GPT to a university level, if not higher. Try it right now - go ask GPT to explain the political situation that allowed Alexander the Great to conquer Persia, or ask it to explain the raytracing algorithm. If there's a part you don't understand, ask it to clarify. You'll be amazed how accessible it makes advanced topics.\nNow, how long before we have VR software with a realistic-looking AI teacher, with an AI-generated voice, who can do the same thing, but respond to students' voices and use body language and visual demonstrations? Five years?\nHow long after that before this tech is cheap, and of such high quality that sending your kids to school will be a worse education?\nNow in, say, 20 years, we could have an AI system that takes a DNA sample, analyses a students genotype to understand what subjects they will be naturally good at, what education approaches will be most successful, and continuously improves its model of the student's behavior by observing them. It crafts a decades-long education journey tailored to the individual, and accompanies them the entire way.\nTeachers, as far as they've existed so far, don't have a chance.", ">\n\nAre you trying to test someone or teach them?\nIf the latter, why do you care about cheating? This reminds me of the ol' teachers who used to restrict calculators because \"you won't always have a calculator with you.\"", ">\n\nYou forget that for 99% of homework students could just copy each other's work. Having the answers out in the world accessible is not a new problem. You just make homework a small part of the grades and you make sure students understand it's important to actually do it or they won't do well on the tests.", ">\n\nThere are so many people that can’t do the basic math examples you mentioned somewhere and they went to school at a time when there were no calculators.\nOn the other hand I was allowed to use calculators in school pretty much the moment I left elementary school and I am really quite good at math even without assistance.\nTool usage is one of humanities key features and trying to work against it instead of finding ways to incorporate new technology into school and life seems backwards.", ">\n\nIronically the teacher will have to use an AI to decipher the \"hand written\" assignments.", ">\n\nYou can't force people to learn.", ">\n\nWhat about teaching how to think rather than how to memorize? Just a thought 💭", ">\n\nThey need to get rid of homework, and have students do their work while they're at school. It's awful, they just pile it on, even if a class only has a little homework that day, there's like 6 or 7 classes so it's a nightmare for students. Seems like the only way to prevent cheating is have them do work in class, so I hope for the students sake, they do that.", ">\n\nI’ll throw my idea into the ring, though we’re still a few years off from this technology:\nWe should have students interact with AI tutors that can prompt them questions and point out details. Then they can collaborate on assignments, and the AI tutor can give feedback and suggest snippets. The AI can evaluate their work and their engagement with the material.", ">\n\nOne of Transformers main applications is in search. Ie you get a set of embeddings you can compare the pairwise distances between embedding and get a list of scores that tell you which embeddings are most similar to the input. \nEssentially tools like google are made to reduce the search space for a given query collect likely links and then rerank the most likely results. \nChatgpt basically does this in a more direct way of searching through a space of potential responses. Basically trained on a task to predict next token given the previous tokens or fill in a mask\nTransformers permeate everything students use from the recommendation algorithms on TikTok Facebook, YouTube to search systems in google. \nIn my opinion students should absolutely not be taught to fear these tools tho I do agree they be tested in constrained environments to challenge them. Current systems should not be used to learn unless you have a clear understanding and are willing to check every word and check your reasoning. Future systems will be much better though so this problem isn’t going anywhere. \nIf anything there should be a push to make these ideas more interpretable to a younger audience and give them the tools to navigate an increasingly complex market of ideas. They should be aware of the limitations and how when they use a piece of software their actions and the actions of those around them are influencing what they see next. \nIt should be used and taught with rigor. \nIt’s programming 2.0", ">\n\nDude no; \nChatGPT is the computer. \nDo you want to be the education system that banned the computer and then wondered why all the other education systems output modern tech workers, while your education system kept outputting chimney sweeps and car factory workers?", ">\n\nHW only exists to make students practice, and generally is worth less than 20% of the grade in a class. If a student chooses to use chat GPT to bypass it then that’s the student’s loss.\nUltimately exams are what schools use to evaluate a students knowledge and I don’t think that’s going to change anytime soon", ">\n\nThere are already programs that check if something was written by an AI or not. Also no student I know actually uses chatGPT for major assignments because chatGPT doesn’t know every text to ever be published so it doesn’t understand the context, and most of the time will just bullshit an answer that’s incorrect.\nEveryone I know that uses chatGPT for school do so for either for assignments so small and simple that it doesn’t make sense to quarantine, or they use it as a more advanced google that can answer questions more accurately than a search engine could, essentially just saving time.\n(most) students are using chatGPT largely as a productivity and time management tool rather than to cheat.", ">\n\nThis is like saying “in the age of calculators, the only way to ensure kids learn maths is to ban calculators in school”. If looked at correctly, chatgpt is an effect multiplier, learning just has to be rejigged to have kids learn to do things that they can’t simply ask chatgpt to do for them.", ">\n\nLess course work and more exams is the future in a world with chatGPT.", ">\n\nChatGPT will be a big no issue soon. I work in a research field and this was something we worried about last year. As of now there are multiple tools and even more being developed that catch the use of ChatGPT. There has been research published that list ChatGPT as a co-author, but for most research, and use by students, it will simply be forbidden and will easily be caught as well. The program does well but it has a particular style that can be caught. Again it will be a non-issue soon.", ">\n\nThis is like forbidding people to use a calculator because it can give you the result instant. A better way is to teach them how to use the calculator, because its here now and won't go away. Same with GPT. Children can learn way better/faster with ChatGPD if used correctly. Imaging having a private teacher for free which helps you learning every time of the day.", ">\n\nLet me ask you this. If ChatGPT could complete a students whole assignment, what would that student have learned from doing that assignment on their own that won’t simply be replaced with ChatGPT by a employer in the future?\nEven if ChatGPT doesn’t replace workers for a decade, why teach students skills that will inevitably be replaced and leave said students jobless in a decade?\nChatGPT won’t only be used in the workforce either. Linus Tech Tips has a video showing how ChatGPT can help people learn new skills and do troubleshooting on their own. If I remember correctly, he manages to completely build a pc by only strictly following what ChatGPT tells him to. It even managed to suggest the best parts for that computers specific use case. It was nowhere near perfect, but in the future it will get there.\nSince ChatGPT is such a useful tool in the workforce and at home, I think it’s crucial we teach students how to use it instead of banning them from it. Maybe students should be given a problem and tasked to use ChatGPT to find the solution or have students attempt to learn a new topic with ChatGPT. I’m not a teacher, I just thought of those examples of the top of my head. I’m sure qualified teachers could think of better assignments than me.\nI could see ChatGPT helping a mechanic diagnose an issue so the mechanic could spend more time fixing the problem rather than diagnosing and I can think of a few examples in other jobs as well where ChatGPT will help a worker be more efficient and save more time.\nI think, if anything, we’re setting students up for failure by not teaching them about these tools that will take over the workforce and help in everyday life.", ">\n\nYou’ll still have to pass a test. Relax.", ">\n\nIt “fairs” extremely well? Maybe some additional time spent observing ChatGPT could actually benefit some" ]
> There are already programs that detect ChatGPT writing.	[ "/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^\| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.", ">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?", ">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.", ">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?", ">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.", ">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?", ">\n\nYou mean a grade?", ">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication", ">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.", ">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)", ">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.", ">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.", ">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.", ">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.", ">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?", ">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.", ">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.", ">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.", ">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.", ">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.", ">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.", ">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.", ">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.", ">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.", ">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.", ">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.", ">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.", ">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.", ">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use", ">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.", ">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.", ">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.", ">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.", ">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.", ">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.", ">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.", ">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).", ">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.", ">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.", ">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.", ">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.", ">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.", ">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.", ">\n\n\nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \n\nWhy? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it. \n\nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \n\nWhy? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? \nLet's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project. \n\nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.\n\nTotally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator.", ">\n\nFor the most part, knowledge workers perform a given amount of work in a given amount of hours, and the number of them hired by a company is TotalHoursNeeded/NumHoursPerEmployee. E.g. if you have 100 manyears of work to get done in a typical year, you employ 100 people.\nChat GPT isn't going to \"replace\" people wholesale, because as you say someone still needs to supervise it. But it looks to be on track to increase the productivity of programmers (can write a first draft of code and finds many of the bugs instantly). \nSame for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones. \nSo now the TotalNeeded is decreased by some percentage, let's say 10% to start. Now you only need 90 human programmers to do that same work. With 25% efficiency gain, you need 75. With 50%, 50. Etc. \nOr take translation jobs. Today, an editor spends roughly 3 minutes per word editing machine translated text, and 1 minute per word editing human-translated text. As long as editors are more expensive per hour than first translation people, it still makes sense much of the time to hire translators, because the software isn't free. \nBut the graph of machine translation \"efficiency\" is trending towards taking the same amount of time to edit as a human translator. As soon as that's hit, there's literally no reason to hire human translators, only editors. \nAnd if the editing time goes down to 30 seconds/word because of further AI assistance to the editor, you only need half as many of those.", ">\n\nThere is currently two better solutions being worked on - one of which is already being used to some degree. \nThe first is ChatGPT developers themselves making moves to make AI written works to be identified by \"watermark\" or similar. I don't thi k this one has taken effect at all yet. \nAnother is by a separate dev team that allows teachers to use software to determine the amount of an essay, for example, that is written by AI what the likelihood of any one sentence or paragraph to have been written by AI. This allows the teachers to use discretion when determining if the student used the AI in a way that they find acceptable or not. This way instead kf running from the scary AI educators can actually utilize tyhe AI with students to help them develop their writing and other communications.", ">\n\nWhat about kids with transportation issues? When I was in school I knew kids that drove almost an hour each way to get there. I certainly couldn’t have asked my parents to drop everything to take me all the way to school so I could do my homework if I forgot. Bus schedules? Do you think schools want to waste more money by burning more gas for extra routes? I understand where you’re coming from, but for a fair amount of children—especially in poorer, more rural areas—that getting to school and back is such a delicate balancing act that such a thing would just punish them.", ">\n\nI've seen a few key things from academics testing out ChatGPT (I have not signed up myself):\n\nIt tends to produce confident, convincing nonsense. It doesn't actually understand what it's writing about, and I hear it shows.\nIt makes up citations. Real authors in the field, real journals... but made-up titles. Things like that, since, again, it doesn't actually understand citations.\n\nThis suggests that, for assignments requiring the demonstration of genuine, in-depth understanding, and not merely the ability to summarize facts, ChatGPT will fail.\nA similar example that you bring up in the comments is programming cheat sheets into calculators - but for well-designed engineering exams (including the licensure exams, at least in the US), cheat sheets are fine and often either allowed or provided. A well-designed exam tests the ability to apply principles, not knowledge of equations, so a cheat sheet is harmless, or even allows the exam to work better (since people aren't distracted with memorizing equations).", ">\n\nThere are three criticisms that I have of this approach. \n\n\nShould we not teach to the environment that we live in? Yes, education often imposes arbitrary constraints like time tests but for research and reports why not let people use and work around all resources? If you can work around chat gpt to work efficiently, then do it. You learn what it can and can’t do and how to use it effectively as a tool. \n\n\nCan chatGPT on it’s own actually write a good essay? From what I have seen it can pull together a few sources. It can generally write fluff based on other things that it has seen. But it struggles to write analysis. It can’t interrogate a source or make value judgements. It could be useful for doing some filler or providing ideas but if to do an actual report, I think it would be insufficient. \n\n\nAn assignment that can be done using chatgpt is probably boring. Here I am writing an essay for no reason other than I find it interesting to discuss this topic. Perhaps, we arent giving students interesting enough assignments or we are overloading them to the point that they don’t have the time to engage? If chatGPT turns out to be an issue maybe it’s more of an indictment of the structures and norms of education.", ">\n\n\n\nhomework in the form of essays, take home tests, coding assignments, would be completed on school grounds. \n\n\nCongratulations, you've invented the \"cram school\".\nI'd recommend reading through your post again and actually thinking about the things you've said. Because essentially, you're merely advocating for the wholesale elimination of homework and for education outside of that to remain totally unchanged. It's almost literally, \"Make the school day 30% longer\".\nMy solution to the \"problem\" of students potentially using ChatGPT to cheat on homework: I don't think you need a hilariously convoluted system of homework \"boiler rooms\" redolent of national security apparatus, that requires schools to adopt ruinously expensive and disruptive technological and administrative changes.\nIt would be sufficient if we institute a system whereby teachers are encouraged to, let's say... \"test\" their students, whether by regular written exams or by talking to them in what I'll call \"classes\", to ensure they understand the material they've been assigned to learn.\nThis method ensures that students cannot use AI homework bots to coast through classes (since they'll literally be found out the very next class), and has the added benefit of not adding three hours to every teacher's day.", ">\n\nWhat about pen and ink?", ">\n\narguably I can just copy a ChatGPT output by hand. So I think that is a first level measure, but not a complete solution.", ">\n\nIt's a better solution than prison just because the curriculum can't keep up with technology.\nWhen calculators arrived on everyone's phone and everyone's pocket did you advocate for the same solution? Unlikely, so why only now with this system?", ">\n\nWell I did and I was. When I was studying engineering in the 80s we routinely could not arrive at exams with a calculator. Even then calculators were programmable enough to allow students to write cheat sheets in calculator memory.\nIt forced us to memorize equations, principals of engineering, and independent thinking. I’m a better engineer because I did.", ">\n\nSo you're what, almost 60? And you think what's best for children is to be like you? Don't you think you may be a bit out of touch?\nAlso, your view was about K12 students, not engineering students.", ">\n\nNo. As I replied, leaning on tools as a crutch all your life will limit your ability and function as a human. For example, you could argue that basic math isn’t necessary. As matter of fact that was an argument years ago with the advent of calculators.\nHowever, humans should be able to exist and functions without a digital crutch. You should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator. You should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google. There are basic elements of duration necessary since we are all still wet grey matter.", ">\n\n\nYou should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator\n\nBut why?\n\nYou should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google\n\nAgain, why?\nWhere do you get your \"should\" from?\nI have basically all human knowledge in my hand, every equation or conversion I'll ever need day to day, even every language I'll likely ever encounter. Why shouldn't I leave my brain free to think about what it wants and to use my incredible resource as and when it's needed?\nDo you envision some Saw-like situation where you're locked to a wall and need to solve maths equations at pain of death?", ">\n\nThe less you use your brain the less likely your body is to maintain it. Our body functions through a use or lose it principle. Just look people who lose movement function/muscle just by being bedridden for a long time. Our brain is not different.\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.", ">\n\nIs wasting resources on process you can deletage outside not using your brain? You free up that space to put to what you decide is important.\n\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.\n\nThe weakest man with a gun can take out the strongest bodybuilder.", ">\n\nAnd if you decide Tik tok and Netflix are important? How do you think that will affect the cognitive ability of kids?\nI didn't mention strength nor physical strength. And even then the strongest man with a gun will probably take out the weakest man with a gun.(An actual fair comparison)", ">\n\nCouldn't chatgpt (or somesuch AI) be asked \"Hey - did you write this?\" and nip this sort of thing in the bud?", ">\n\nNo, Chat GPT doesn't remember everything it's said, the potential things it could say are huge and even if someone wrote something that Chat GPT might say, it could be a coincidence.", ">\n\nWell, strike that idea then.\nStill though - there must be some way to use AI to deal with this. \"set a thief to catch a thief\" and all that.", ">\n\nChat GPT (and most generative AIs) use GANs to generate content. \nIn laymen's terms (and extremely simplified as it's above my level of understanding) a GAN is 2 AI systems competing against each other, a creator AI that creates content and a checker AI that decides if the content was genuine or made by the other AI. \nSo any automated way to tell if it's AI generated can be built into the checker AI in future versions and the creator AI will learn to avoid whichever features the checker AI is spotting.", ">\n\nChatGPT is just another mechanism for reducing the need for labor, and it's not going away. \nChildren will need to be educated in both how to make effective use of it (for as long as it's not sufficient to completely eliminate mental labor), and also in the ethics of not using it. Always forcing them to write in airgapped places isn't going to do that, it just makes them resent it. \nAlso: essay writing on a scale needed to really learn long-form writing is not very amenable to doing in an airgapped classroom, because honestly we're not using dead-tree sources of information anymore already, so doing their research pretty much has to include doing it on line. \nBut really: laborious manual long-form essay writing is going to go the way of penmanship and looking things up in a library as an unneeded skill very quickly. We need children to adjust to that reality of the modern world rather than pretending it will go away. \nPeople are still needed (for now) to do the important part of writing essays without doing the laborious bit that ChatGPT automates anyway: deciding what to write, and editing it into a convincing and well-written form. \nForcing kids to spend a lot of time learning how to write the basic bulk part of essays is a lot like teaching them how to make buggy-whips in shop class: a pointless exercise. \nIt would be better to give them all prewritten ChatGPT essays and have them learn the limitations and capabilities.", ">\n\nIs ChatGPT really that much more effective than just grabbing things off Wikipedia? I was asking it things about elections and it was just Wikipedia from two years ago", ">\n\nThe answer is NEVER to limit technology. It’s to teach the new generation how to use that technology to achieve the same goal.\nIt’s pointless to ban computers and teach the memorization of dates in history class. It’s much more productive to teach online research skills so that if an individual needs to know the date of a particular moment in history, they can reliably Google it.\nChatGPT is the same. It renders writing essays as pointless, and it necessitates the teachers to adapt to new teaching styles, such as teaching the skills on how best to manipulate ChatGPT to return the information you need.", ">\n\nI was banned from using programming calculators when I studied engineering in the 80s during exams. It forced the students to all be on the same level playing field and forced us to actually know the equations, their applications, and the processes of whatever engineering course I was taking.\nIt made us better engineers.", ">\n\nHow does handicapping you make you a better engineer? If I put you and an engineer trained with technology in the same room together, who do you think would accomplish the task faster?", ">\n\nThe handicapped engineer, easily. The point of forcing students to actually learn the material is so that they understand how to reason about the underlying processes when they need to troubleshoot something going wrong, and understand the tradeoffs between approaches and how to select the best one for the task. \nOnce you understand things deeply you don't actually need training in doing things quickly because it's immediately intuitive how to apply a technological process to save time. The guy that leaned heavily on technology is basically fucked if he has to use a technique or software that he didn't specifically train on since he doesn't have a good foundation to abstract from. It would be more appropriate to call this person a technician.", ">\n\nThe purpose of calculators is to do the menial part of the work, not to solve whole processes. The engineer that learned with calculators likely knows how to select the right process to solve a problem, but uses the calculator to do the math faster and with fewer errors.", ">\n\nAt the college level, we’re not talking about tools to add and multiply. We’re talking about tools like Wolfram Alpha that do entire symbolic manipulations for you. If I took a calculus class and on all the assignments used Wolfram Alpha to find derivatives, do you think I would have learned anything?\nThat is what ChatGPT is doing for essays", ">\n\nThere are things called pencil and paper.", ">\n\nAs I said, this is the first line defense. However as I already commented to another user. I can simply hand copy ChatGPT output. Essentially not doing my own independent research, writing, coding, and studying.", ">\n\nWhy don't you consider that research? \nThe first source was the best. It's incredibly efficient research IMO.", ">\n\nThe idea of tool removal has always been flawed. From calculators to chat GPT and beyond. If your test is so flimsy that a simple tool invalidates it then the test is poorly built. Test shouldn't be simple busywork tasks, they should require thinking, problem solving, complex thought. If it's just a game of memorization that can be cheated by answers on a paper, you've built a bad test.\nover memorization (which is what our current school systems teach) is not only unhelpful, but also harmful. We live in an era of wikipedia being a reliable source, of vast access to tools both online and phsycial. We should be teaching kids they should do the work but with the help of those tools, not despite them.\nThe main issue with your argument is that based on what you've said, i can assume you think the current school system is a good one but so many studies have shown that at least here in the US, the school systems are some of the worst in the world. It's this memorize, ignore tools, singular focus mentality that plays such a big role.\nIf we were more creative with education, incorporating tool utilization into the learning process, we'd likely have a major improvement to our educational successes. I could go on about how the education system prefers certain kinds of students over others, and how many students are left behind simply because they don't learn like other kids and are therefore punished, but I won't. All I'll say is that more restrictions on how and what kids learn isn't going to help them learn more or better.\nand in 15 years when chat GPT is a part of daily life in every single company on the planet in some way or another (which I'm beyond certain it will be), kids who were taught how to properly utilize it will have just such a huge advantage in the workforce over those who weren't", ">\n\nRather than attempt to find ways to prevent new technology from interfering with existing pedagogy, shouldn't we review and revise pedagogy as new technology develops? \nIf a chat AI program can write these things, what is the point of having humans repeatedly do the same work? We don't expect people to use an abacus when doing math, or limit their research to what's in the library card catalogue, or require printed paper publications as essay resources; we adapted to the calculator, and to the internet and search engines. So too should we adapt to things like ChatGPT, not by trying to pretend it doesn't exist, but by finding ways to incorporate it into a more holistic approach to learning.\nRather than chain kids to an airgapped room on school grounds outside of school hours to do homework that's of dubious educational value in the first place, we should take this as an opportunity to refocus schooling on in-class engagement and direct instruction. ChatGPT and programs like it are showing us yet another thing we as humans can outsource to our technology, so why struggle to do things in a more difficult and inefficient way?", ">\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\nIn addition, AI is only as good as the data it is fed. You must still be able to do the work on your own to analyze when the AI is giving valid outputs (garbage in, garbage out). This is especially true, when AI runs the risks of being owned or operated by those with a specific agenda. Can you imagine the trouble that would result if people relied on AI to determine who to vote for, but someone was able to pay the operators to have the AI promote them?\nRelying on AI to do our work for us is a distillation of an appeal to authority fallacy on a large scale (if the AI says it, it must be true).", ">\n\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\n\nThis is something I worry about A LOT when it comes to AI. Our collective understanding of the subjects that we usually classify as \"the humanities\" is constantly evolving as we learn more, and especially as a more diverse set of people are allowed to study, research and put forth opinions and arguments.\nImagine if students were outsourcing all their history, psychology, sociology and philosophy homework to a chatbot with a 1950s understanding of those subjects.\nImagine doctors outsourcing psych patient diagnoses to a chatbot with the same understanding.\nOn an arguably less \"serious\" but still critically important moral and political topic, imagine if all/most videogame art was outsourced to an AI engine with a 1990s sensibility for female characters. Same for all kinds of representation and diversity.\nHow about politics and political science in general... ha!\nEtc, etc etc.\nIt is NOT the case that we already have discovered all the true answers to the big questions, and we can merely turn to a \"knowledge calculator\" like ChatGPT to spit out the truth.\nEven if AI can pretty accurately reflect the discourse of the day, as it is currently understood and accepted, our collective knowledge and culture will stagnate if we do not actively participate in developing it, and we will all pay the price for that.", ">\n\nThese are all moralistic arguments that ultimately don’t mean anything.", ">\n\nI would say they are more epistemic arguments, which do matter greatly in the context of education (which is what the op was referring to).", ">\n\nAre any of these things mentioned actually realistic concerns? Someone is going to train an AI bot to generate 90s female art characters with big tits?\nNo. Lol and even if someone did, who cares?", ">\n\nConsidering how many people believe obviously fake stories that have no supporting evidence (and in spite of contrary evidence), yes, I believe they are very real concerns.\nIf an AI says we should use Brawndo in farming because its got what plants crave (electrolytes), we should probably be able to justify it with reasoning beyond \"the AI says so.\"", ">\n\nWho is suggesting we do anything “just because an AI said so”? \nDo you read books and think everything in it is true “because the book says so”?", ">\n\nHow do you determine if what the book/ai said is false?\nYou would typically do it through a process of research and discovery.\nPeoples' ability to do research and discovery will be greatly diminished if we rely on AI to do those things for us (which is what the previous posters were suggesting).\nTherefore, reliance on AI will lead to us losing the ability to discern if the results of what the AI is saying is correct.", ">\n\nWhat? Lol that doesn’t make any sense at all. \nIt is not like if we use AI then all previous knowledge is simply forgotten or lost. It’s all still there.", ">\n\nForcing homework at school makes that \"not homework\", and this approach has never worked. You cant reject change, it never works. Every time there has been a game changing event, people adapted. Those who tried to reject change disappeared. Horse carriages disappeared from roads because something else replaced it. Some people supposedly rejected progress, but they are lying to themselves, they still use modern tech or services at some point.\nAnyway, the change is here, and it made essays irrelevant. Time to find another way to test people skills. \nGive it a little time though. ChatGPT costs a ginormous amount of money to run and will not stay free for long either.", ">\n\nIt's not just ChatGPT, the actual innovation is not the interface but lies in algorithms that can recreate natural language of similar quality with smaller data samples. There are also OpenSource datasets like ThePile, etc. so even if OpenAI moves to a paid model (and they will, quickly. You can already sign up to be first in line for the API), there will be other free providers.", ">\n\nHaving coded AIs, I disagree. ChatGPT is a regular trained AI. The novelty is the scale of the operation, and the fact there is a public API.\nNo one ever spent that much money on resources to run and train an AI publicly. I am pretty sure google has done something similar with user data sets to make their search engine and general ecosystem.\nI wish there was a way to have algorithms working with smaller data sets and produce similar results, but it kind of does not work that way.", ">\n\nThere are already tools to identify ChatGPT generated texts. Such tools will improve as another use of literally the same technology.\nJust as teachers submit essays for identifying plagiarism, teachers will submit essays for identifying AI-generated text. \nFurther, a focus could change from grading students on what they know to grading students' ability to ask meaningful, content-based questions about the subject. After all, knowing facts isn't particularly valuable as a skill. Integrating facts and discovering valuable questions is still something that remains a uniquely human skill. And is where people will continue to add value as AI becomes more advanced.", ">\n\nStudents have always been able to 'cheat' on work done outside the classroom, by copying or somehow getting others to do their work for them, even before the internet. Yes with more advanced modern technology it is easier but this has always been a concern. \nAs regular learning environments like supervised classrooms are already 'quarantined' in the way you descibe you are fundementally just suggesting an increase in learning hours as a supplement to homework. This has been suggested by many for various reasons but it would overall cuase more issues than it fixes. It increases work load on teachers and administrators, stretching already thin educational budgets, and forces increased mental strain on children. It would limit their ability to do other recreational and out of ciriculum activities. This would be disruptive and controlling when the quantity of teaching and learning time that children recive is already considered sufficiant for a good education.", ">\n\nHell the only thing stopping me from using ChatGPT regularly for my work now is that it's always at capacity.", ">\n\nApply tests that are hand written, doesnt matter how a person obtains the knowledge, actually learning the subject is most important thing.", ">\n\nThere is no amount of ChatGPT that could influence a good old oral exam where the teacher evaluates the understanding via a little chat.", ">\n\nSo tired of this view. We shouldn’t be fighting technology. Teach kids to use the resources they have to find answers. It’s such a waste of 12 years of school, teaching kids to memorize facts and follow rules. \nInstead, every test should be open book and reward the best answers. Ask the kids to show their work or explain their thought process so we reward understanding of a topic rather than memorization of steps or text.", ">\n\n20 years ago, there were already homework communities and learn groups. Even from the publishers of school books and with free access to tutors. Ok, they didnt do the final homework for me, but gave me a great starting point.\nBeing the kid who transcribes a wiki page was already stupid back then when others could call you out:\nBut I guess the actual problem is lack of digital literacy with teachers, they're always 5-10 years behind.", ">\n\nIf you are testing skills that can be done by free tools on the internet, then you are testing irrelevant skills.\nThe best way to educate kids is to test for skills they need, not skills they objectively don't.\nI was able to witness a couple of universities adapt to tests during quarantine, and follow reports on how the new methods would be used going forward.\nThe results where thus:\nMass offline testing is incredibly cost efficient (one examiner per ~300 students), but the tests results are a poor indicator of real world performance.\nOne to One testing is incredibly expensive, but can, when done right, test actual understanding and performance.\nBoth will be useful, of course. Mass testing is most useful when used in a way that students aren't incentivized to cheat, such as when framed as practice.", ">\n\nOne of the upsides of needing to prevent this kind of tech from cheating assignments is that teachers should focus on having students be able to do their homework at school. (As a former teacher, we were trying to do this already- no more than 15 min of homework per class). \nI dont think we need to do quite what you say. We just need to limit outside electronics and have in-person classrooms or computer labs with programs designed to be AI-proof. \nI have ALWAYS believed that cell phones/internet watches should be stored in school lockers (at most) and never allowed anywhere else on campus during the school day. If anyone needs to contact the students they contact the desk who relays their message/other need. Many schools already do this.", ">\n\n∆\nI agree with this. It would help.", ">\n\nThank you!", ">\n\nThat is utterly pointless.\nThere is no reason to limit the available tools.\nThis just reminds me of the entire \"you won't have a calculator wherever you go\" argument.\nSchool should instead put a focus on responsibly using available tools.", ">\n\nAnd if students choose to use them irresponsibly, what should schools do?\nAnd can you please define what constitutes responsible use? Because despite knowing about plagiarism, people still copy and paste from the internet. Perfect abstinence is easier than perfect moderation after all.", ">\n\nJust return to hand written essays and have more oral exams.", ">\n\n∆l\nActually of all comments having oral exams compliments my post and I agree with you. Enjoy the delta.", ">\n\nIn a Faraday cage.", ">\n\nIf children can just generate work with ChatGPT, it simply shows that children are not being taught anything valuable. (Once ChatGPT responses can be generated in almost unlimited amounts at very low cost, it necessarily means those responses are of low value)\nInstead shouldn't we be teaching children to provide more valuable outcomes that ChatGPT can't replicate?", ">\n\nBeing able to do on your own what ChatGPT does with access to an immense amount of data and processing power is valuable. The actual writing isn't valuable, obviously, but it would be silly to expect it to be. It's just a side effect of practice, you spend time making things of little or no value to build up the skills you'll need to make something that actually matters. That's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\nI think you'd be hard pressed to teach a class of children to outperform ChatGPT in writing without ever asking them to write something that could also be done via AI. What would that even look like?", ">\n\n\nThat's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\n\nIt is a problem. That is why I hated math class until 2nd year of university.", ">\n\nDid you start discovering novel math results in your second year of university, or was that just the point at which you first encountered problems you found interesting, despite the fact that someone else had already solved them before? Thinking back the class you didn't hate, do you think it should be removed if someone can construct an AI to give all the answers you gave?", ">\n\nThis is only a method for evaluating students, it doesn't do anything to educate them.\nChatgpt is potentially a great tool for education but trying to find complex ways around it for homework is pointless. When testing fact retention is required using school/university computers with no web browsing makes sense. For any other test or situation it's a tool that might be used.", ">\n\nI understand OPs concern. That said, I do not think you can create true quarantine for a multitude of reasons. \nThe biggest one is probably time. I worked through high school and university. Because I lived in the middle of nowhere it was about a 30 min drive to high school and then an hour to uni. Having to stay at these quarantine zones to complete assignments would have been hell on my schedule, car, and wallet. \nYou said it yourself, if someone is going to cheat, they will cheat. If I had to do the work in a quarantine zone, what exactly stops me from doing the actual work on my computer at home, printing it all out, and then just writing that into the computer at the quarantine zone? Unless you want to try having students write an entire essay in their hour long class? There has to be a point where they go home and then this falls apart.", ">\n\nThere are already lots of ways to cheat in homework and mostly our steps to deal with that amount to the honour system, and by university level, automated plagiarism detection (which can be quite easily avoided). The point you \"won't argue\" that people will cheat if given the opportunity is probably the actual crux of what's wrong with your suggestion and the part that needs a big [citation needed]. Concluding that the majority of people are fundamentally dishonest is a big assumption to handwave away. \nIf you want an education, cheating is stupid. Ultimately you might get a paper qualification out of it but you'll have actually learned nothing - you won't hold up long against someone who has done it properly when you actually have to apply the skills. Or if you do, then the assignments weren't that crucial to the learning in the first place.", ">\n\nMany of the things I learned in school were largely irrelevant. I couldn't use a calculator to do long division. After I passed those early elementary school years I never did long division again. I wouldn't even argue learning the long division algo is mandatory. It's nice to have learnt it I guess, but I spent way too many hours on it. I can see learning fundamentals of essay writing, etc, are great, but why can't we just evolve to learn more effective things in life? ChatGPT should be used as a tool, not viewed as a detriment.", ">\n\nIt'd suggest that the best way to educate them is to embrace ChatGBT and teach them to use it well. Your method is a bit like teaching kids to do math without calculators or accounting without excel or financial software. There is some value, but it runs out very quickly and you're at a social and competetive disadvantage for taking some archane principled approach to education that is more of a defense of \"how we used to do it\".\nI'm old enough to remember when using a word processor was sometime forbidden for reasons of fairness - that seems entirely disconnected now from doing good work and it's almost hard to envision the thought process of those who thought everything should be hand written for students. \nIsn't the kid who is amazing at utilizing tools like ChatGBT going to do much better in the world than the one who does not? Your idea of \"proper education\" would easily regress back to needing to do all subjects scrawled in dirt with sticks and grunted in non-standardized language.", ">\n\nOR, chatgpt will be a great boon to the entire education system:\nIncreased accessibility: ChatGPT and other AI-powered systems can provide education to individuals who otherwise would not have access to it, due to geographical, financial, or other barriers.\n\nPersonalized learning: ChatGPT can provide personalized education experiences based on each student's strengths, weaknesses, and learning style.\n\n24/7 availability: ChatGPT can operate 24/7, providing students with access to education at any time, anywhere, which can be especially beneficial for those with demanding schedules or for individuals in remote areas.\n\nScalability: ChatGPT can provide education to a large number of students simultaneously, which could help to address the shortage of teachers and resources in some areas.\n\nCost-effectiveness: ChatGPT can be a more cost-effective option for providing education compared to traditional methods, as it does not require physical classrooms or teachers.\n\nImproved student engagement: ChatGPT can provide interactive, engaging learning experiences that can hold students' attention and foster deeper learning.\n\n--Source: ChatGPT", ">\n\nThere a lots of places where texts and exams are “open book”. The questions have to be written differently, and the point is that you’re not testing someone’s ability to memorize, but rather their ability to understand. This is a more difficult test to write, so in theory AI could force education to improve since everyone would a virtual tutor with them at all times.", ">\n\nI'm a teacher and I've been thinking a lot about this the last couple months. Changes within the education system/curriculum/syllabus/retraining of teachers will take far too long to keep up with the ease of access to, and success of, chatgpt and AI in general. \nThe only solution moving forward both short and long term is to embrace it, there is no stopping it now anyway and if we don't all want to be out of a job in 5 years we need to - \n- demonstrate feasible/moral/ethical use of such tools\n- create more opportunities for collaborative learning/hands-on/problem solving tasks and ones that increase communication skills between peers. \nHow this applies to each individual, specific task will vary and must require a lot of creativity and trial and error, but I think relying too heavily on your department of education to handle this (or most 'boots on the ground' problems) will ultimately only degrade a students experience and ability for learning.", ">\n\nI'm with you on what you're trying to accomplish. I just don't know that it's the \"best\" way. \nFor instance, how is homework performed in school superior to trusting the kids to learn the material, which would then be tested by oral exam? And yes, I do believe that asking a student to verbally explain a topic is a really good way to gauge mastery.", ">\n\nThere is not a hope in hell that we'll go back to hand written stuff. That's not how technology works. As the music companies. There are better ways to show you know a subject, for sure, than the current out of-date ones. That's for sure. Have you ever taken an on-line exam?", ">\n\nI argue to let them use chatGPT as it will be their future. This is similar to my generations \"you'll never walk around with a calculator so learn math.\" The future children will grow into a society where work means utilizing AI tech to help them thrive. If chatGPT helps them write an essay, and it's good, it means they're using resources. I agree, however, that we should supplement this with actual reading and writing.", ">\n\nI would argue that most of time that ChatGPT and similar technologies is going to be an issue is in 8-12 grade and college.\nThis technology is not going away, and it's only going to improve. Personally I would treat it like calculators, audio books and spell check.\nTech kids how to use the technology properly. Sure it's somewhat handy to calculate numbers in your head, but having the ability to do math in your head does not give you much of an advantage in today's world and not being able to doesn't hurt you much. But it's still critical to know formulas and how to peace together algebraic statements and word problems. \nKnowing how to spell properly is less important than knowing proper word usage - most times you're writing something it can be spell-checked in real time. Sure it's \"terrible that today's kids...\" don't know how to spell... but it's not going to affect their career. \nEnter ChatGPT - same thing. Should I spend the time to write a white paper on the changing advertising landscape to alert my boss about the a potential seismic shift in advertising revenue, or should I ask ChatGPT to write it? As a user I have to understand its limits and potential copywrite issues, but even more importantly how to verify that what it writes is correct and targeting the right audience. Is data from before 2020 going to be recent and accurate enough for my thesis? How do I supplement the discussion with real-world data? \nThis is our new reality. We should be learning how to use the tools properly, not trying to figure out to lock it down (which frankly makes as much sense as locking down the use of calculators or spell check).", ">\n\nI think there are already apps in place that are able to detect AI generated text (Read this article).\nAlso, I think a better method would be to simply have a database of ChatGPT (could be encrypted) generated text and make it available to already existing software that is use to detect plagiarism (this is just an exemple amongst many)", ">\n\nFrankly I don’t think high schoolers and below should be given homework or tests at all. One learns magnitudes better through exploration as opposed to mindless repetition. Engage with these kids intellectually, make them free thinking Athenians, not bags of knowledge of which they have no idea how to use.\nDoes it not surprise anyone that we train people for over a decade in intellect yet hardly have any intellectuals?", ">\n\nI would argue that society would be better off spending resources on teaching children how to use this tool effectively. Knowing how to get the right answer is what matters in this world.", ">\n\nThen answer this: Well why learn math at all? Seriously.\nWhy learn he concept of subtraction let alone division? I could and society has argued that with the advent of digital calculators. \nYet we learn it. \nLater we use calculators to take the mundane and already known processes to the next level. We abstract away the mundane. \nAs a EE having worked and am working on products you may be using right now to read this, when I develop new silicon and chips I don’t break out Karnaugh maps and lay down circuit using a T square and stencils of gates. But I sure the hell know what I’m doing and expect the tools to do for me. \nTeaching fundamentals of reading, writing, arithmetic, essays, research are just that fundamental.", ">\n\nI’d argue that the vast majority don’t need anything beyond basic math anyways. \nGo ask the average adult if they know the quadratic equation and what it means and you’d probably be disappointed.", ">\n\nChatGPT is here to stay, you'd better advocate for teaching people how to make the most of it and use it wisely instead of pretending it doesn't exist.\nOne of my favourite teachers always told students to use the best tools there are.", ">\n\nI think it depends completely on the topic. In my field of study, it’s fairly easy to come up with term paper assignments that the bot would be useless for. \nLooking back at the paper I wrote last year, I don’t see how any current bot could have helped, as it isn’t able to read or summarize specific sources (yet?).\nAn example of the type of assignments we get is “Discuss the role of state capacity in x and x conflict in light of (specific research paper)‘s dimensions of state capacity - do your findings confirm the findings of (authors), why or why not?\nThis way of combining literature made it difficult even for me to be on top of it, as there were no sources that had attempted this exact combination - it has to be original. \nAlso, I find it’s the best way to learn, because you have to rely on your own judgement and there are no shortcuts, even asking the professor was unhelpful as he wasn’t too familiar with the details.", ">\n\nThis is not the best way.", ">\n\n\nThese homework rooms would have Internet connected computers for use but access to ChatGPT would be filtered and blocked.\n\nThis wouldn't be feasible, there's far too many roundabout ways to still access ChatGPT. Security measures like domain filtering are just unproductive games of whack-a-mole. \nEdit: removed all the other stuff I wrote, as those points have already been mentioned in previous top-level comments.", ">\n\nHomework shouldn’t be the go-to method of “education” to begin with. Imo Universities should focus on the integral part of education: the lectures. Tools like chatgpt can help student who are actually interested in a subject to learn more easily about it, but whether students actually learn anything or not from a class won’t change regardless of if work is authentic or copied from an AI\nSource: I’m a college student and have had experience in both supervised environments where we had to do work without the use of computers/phones and solely-online environments where many students cheated", ">\n\nWhile this could work, it is not necessarily the best way in terms of accessibility and of learning in general. \nFirst, students with ADHD and certain other conditions may not necessarily be the able to be productive at all times, or at the specific time they have to work on those computers, especially if those computers are not in an environment ideal to that specific person. It would also not be very feasible to give students enough time on these computers to complete the bigger assignments and essays. \nSecond, while ChatGPT is quite advanced, it simply works by looking at language patterns and often gets factual details incorrect. For example, with bigger coding problems, it tries to import modules that do not exist or call on functions that it has not defined. In literature, it cannot analyze texts on much more than a surface level. I will admit it can use secondary sources for textual analysis, however, it is unable to come up with a clear thesis on its own. \nAdditionally, take-home tests can be just as easily cheated on using a normal Google search, and usually test thinking skills rather than understanding and knowledge. \nFinally, essay-writing and other types of assignments are generally not ideal for learning as they are only one type of skill, and university professors are recognizing this. Not only do they not work for all learning styles, but they are only used so commonly because of tradition. University professors are structuring assignments around ways that are innovative enough that ChatGPT is unable to work on them. Along with requiring specific readings which the AI might not have access to, and citing of all sources (which has always been a requirement that the AI might trip up on), they are also going away from the traditional essay format into others. For example, I am studying literature, a relatively essay-heavy field, and in my past few courses I have been asked to analyze comics (which the AI cannot read), edit other people’s essays and articles (from past courses), create a mock syllabus or lesson plan with justifications for each reading, and create annotated bibliographies as a stepping stone to an essay. All of these not only require different skills and encourage different types of learning and research but are quite difficult for an AI to do. \nAll in all, while your suggestion is great, the very nature of the AI and the fact that it exists at all is perhaps a sign that the best course of action is to rework the way we think about evaluation. After all, if an evaluation is such that an AI can complete it without the ability to actually think (it works by using observed language patterns), then perhaps the evaluation is not ideal.", ">\n\nI bet teachers and people thought the same thing about calculators when they came out or 1990s internet. AI bots like chat GPT are just a tool.", ">\n\nAll this effectively does is train kids to accomplish goals of a type that do not exist in the real world in a situation they will never realistically encounter. A better goal is adjusting testing criteria to account for this.\nThere might be very specific sets of knowledge for which rote memorization is appropriate, and for those, the air gapped testing may be appropriate. But I believe those are the exception rather than the rule. By and large, teaching kids to effectively utilize the tools that will be available to them is what we should be doing.", ">\n\nImagine learning where the only books are hand written.\nThe printing press took out a huge amount of repetitive labor in the learning process.\nAI/ChatGPT stands a good chance of removing a huge amount knowledge labor which stands between an idea and the end product. Learning to use the AI to best effect the Idea->End Product Chain is more important than worrying about memorizing formulae we will likely never need to remember. \nThe effort to restrict ChatGPT is just education system worrying about their Cheese Being Moved.", ">\n\nThis just doesn't make any sense to me. You're arguing that we shouldn't allow students to use tools they would have at their disposal in a real working environment, and for what? Why wouldn't you want students to use every tool at their disposal? How exactly is handicapping them helping them to understand the coursework?\nA much better approach would be to fundamentally alter how we teach to better prepare them for the workforce. Encouraging collaboration and creative problem solving skills is much more practical and effective.", ">\n\nChatGPT may pass the Bar, but I highly doubt it will replace lawyers or other professionals. \nThe whole point of credentialing is to drive accountability. Anyone can study the law and cite precedent without a law degree. Actually representing a client in a court of law requires oversight and knowledge. ChatGPT isn't perfect - it will make mistakes from time to time. So who is responsible when it makes a mistake? When is a client (who is not familiar with the law) supposed to know that a mistake has been made on their behalf? For this reason, until ChatGPT is literally perfect you're always going to need a credentialed professional to review the output.\nFor the record, I think ChatGPT is wonderful. But it's a tool that people will use, not a full-fledged replacement for professionals. My employer (a Fortune 500 company) has already rejected its use for internal projects. IT has the website blocked.", ">\n\nThe kids that are educated without its use will fall behind in business when faced with kids that are using it to its fullest extent.\nYou've successfully made an argument for people to succeed in a test that is worthless in the real world. Its parameters don't match.", ">\n\nThe best way to educate children is to teach them skills and strategies that will actually serve them in the workplace of the future. \nChatGPT already has reached the point of replacing humans (See Buzzfeed news). If ChatGPT can take the test or do the homework then what value is that education going to be to these students? Especially older students will quickly see rote memorization as a waste of time and so yes they probably will cheat if they have the opportunity. Trying to force these things to be “learned” and prove that knowledge by brute force banning things is going to be a costly uphill battle.", ">\n\nWhat if we modify how essays are written by students, by asking them to include citations (which is something ChatGPT can’t do)?\nWe can’t stop new tools from making old methods obsolete. But we can focus on enhancing critical thinking of students in a stepwise manner. When a new tool is created, think about how you can adapt rather than resist it.", ">\n\nWhy not just train an ai to spot ai written papers?", ">\n\nWhat about gradually putting more emphasis on oral assignments?", ">\n\nEverything you said makes perfect sense...IF the goal was to teach children simply how to write the perfect standard essay. But that is a very limited way of viewing education and what its real goal is. The real goal of education is to teach children how to think. To come up with the right questions, not just the right answers. In a world where a \"good enough\" essay on literally anything can be conjured as if by magic by a machine, what's the actual value of that exercise now? For a very long time teachers have used the essay as a way to evaluate how a person thinks. Now that a machine can write it for you, we need new ways to evaluate how students think. That's the real task we are facing. Fuck the essay, just like we ditched the slide rule for calculators and later computers, etc. Tools change but the real game remains the same: Think for yourself!", ">\n\nI'd say the best way would be to accept the reality of changing technology and reevaluating the approach we have towards education as a whole.\nGranted, I'd say that's only one half of the picture: reassessing how we conceive if jobs and labour in the face of increasing automation goes along with that, and I think neither really works without the other.\nBottom line is that human labour is more and more obsolete as time goes on, so human jobs will be less and less in demand (I'd argue moving away from a capitalistic system is the right call, but even if you don't, automation is still an incentive).\nSince a large part of the incentive of our current education system is \"prepare you for a job\" I think the whole thing is going to fall short in light of these kinds of systems developing.\nTheres lots of people now who pursue knowledge as a project of passion, rather than a means to an end, and I think moving to a system that supports and encourages that kind of ambition is the way to go.", ">\n\nI disagree. We should learn to use the tools we have efficiently. Otherwise you are not learning for your career but for some professors ego", ">\n\nThat’s not “education in the era of ChatGPT.” That’s education in the era before ChatGPT while we figure out what the world with ChatGPT will look like so we have some idea of what to do with it.\nThat’s also not “educating,” that’s just “assessment.” Assessment is simply a measuring system for education. As long as you think of the acquisition of knowledge and skill as requiring knowledge regurgitation and skill performance in isolation and divorced from context/individualized, then you’re going to end up at necessitating a kind of geofenced, Luddite assessment model. The training itself predicates the assessment method. How we assess is defined by how we teach, and vice versa.\nThe best assessment method to gauge understanding is, and always has been, conversation.\nAll we need to do is pair assessment with regular conversation between qualified teacher and student to determine if personal comprehension is present. Not an interview, not an interrogation — conversation. Problem solving performance contexts are also great revealer of internalized knowledge and skill.\nChatGPT is a relative nonissue if your approach to assessment is at all human.\nIt’s only a problem when you’re trying to mechanize and dehumanized education. “Rigorous” does not mean “mechanical.” We are going to have to trust the professional, knowledge- and skill-assessing judgements of humans who already know and can do.\nEducation reverts to having more emphasis on apprenticeship and mentorship models, where the relationship itself is part of the learning process. \n(The “accountability!” cranks are gonna love that…)", ">\n\nI have a strong suspicion that discussions like this, while very interesting, will be obsolete long before any changes can actually be implemented in schools. In fact, I'm pretty sure schools will be gone entirely in the near future.\nAs of right now, you can be taught almost any subject by an exceptionally well-spoken, fast and infinitely patient teacher called GPT to a university level, if not higher. Try it right now - go ask GPT to explain the political situation that allowed Alexander the Great to conquer Persia, or ask it to explain the raytracing algorithm. If there's a part you don't understand, ask it to clarify. You'll be amazed how accessible it makes advanced topics.\nNow, how long before we have VR software with a realistic-looking AI teacher, with an AI-generated voice, who can do the same thing, but respond to students' voices and use body language and visual demonstrations? Five years?\nHow long after that before this tech is cheap, and of such high quality that sending your kids to school will be a worse education?\nNow in, say, 20 years, we could have an AI system that takes a DNA sample, analyses a students genotype to understand what subjects they will be naturally good at, what education approaches will be most successful, and continuously improves its model of the student's behavior by observing them. It crafts a decades-long education journey tailored to the individual, and accompanies them the entire way.\nTeachers, as far as they've existed so far, don't have a chance.", ">\n\nAre you trying to test someone or teach them?\nIf the latter, why do you care about cheating? This reminds me of the ol' teachers who used to restrict calculators because \"you won't always have a calculator with you.\"", ">\n\nYou forget that for 99% of homework students could just copy each other's work. Having the answers out in the world accessible is not a new problem. You just make homework a small part of the grades and you make sure students understand it's important to actually do it or they won't do well on the tests.", ">\n\nThere are so many people that can’t do the basic math examples you mentioned somewhere and they went to school at a time when there were no calculators.\nOn the other hand I was allowed to use calculators in school pretty much the moment I left elementary school and I am really quite good at math even without assistance.\nTool usage is one of humanities key features and trying to work against it instead of finding ways to incorporate new technology into school and life seems backwards.", ">\n\nIronically the teacher will have to use an AI to decipher the \"hand written\" assignments.", ">\n\nYou can't force people to learn.", ">\n\nWhat about teaching how to think rather than how to memorize? Just a thought 💭", ">\n\nThey need to get rid of homework, and have students do their work while they're at school. It's awful, they just pile it on, even if a class only has a little homework that day, there's like 6 or 7 classes so it's a nightmare for students. Seems like the only way to prevent cheating is have them do work in class, so I hope for the students sake, they do that.", ">\n\nI’ll throw my idea into the ring, though we’re still a few years off from this technology:\nWe should have students interact with AI tutors that can prompt them questions and point out details. Then they can collaborate on assignments, and the AI tutor can give feedback and suggest snippets. The AI can evaluate their work and their engagement with the material.", ">\n\nOne of Transformers main applications is in search. Ie you get a set of embeddings you can compare the pairwise distances between embedding and get a list of scores that tell you which embeddings are most similar to the input. \nEssentially tools like google are made to reduce the search space for a given query collect likely links and then rerank the most likely results. \nChatgpt basically does this in a more direct way of searching through a space of potential responses. Basically trained on a task to predict next token given the previous tokens or fill in a mask\nTransformers permeate everything students use from the recommendation algorithms on TikTok Facebook, YouTube to search systems in google. \nIn my opinion students should absolutely not be taught to fear these tools tho I do agree they be tested in constrained environments to challenge them. Current systems should not be used to learn unless you have a clear understanding and are willing to check every word and check your reasoning. Future systems will be much better though so this problem isn’t going anywhere. \nIf anything there should be a push to make these ideas more interpretable to a younger audience and give them the tools to navigate an increasingly complex market of ideas. They should be aware of the limitations and how when they use a piece of software their actions and the actions of those around them are influencing what they see next. \nIt should be used and taught with rigor. \nIt’s programming 2.0", ">\n\nDude no; \nChatGPT is the computer. \nDo you want to be the education system that banned the computer and then wondered why all the other education systems output modern tech workers, while your education system kept outputting chimney sweeps and car factory workers?", ">\n\nHW only exists to make students practice, and generally is worth less than 20% of the grade in a class. If a student chooses to use chat GPT to bypass it then that’s the student’s loss.\nUltimately exams are what schools use to evaluate a students knowledge and I don’t think that’s going to change anytime soon", ">\n\nThere are already programs that check if something was written by an AI or not. Also no student I know actually uses chatGPT for major assignments because chatGPT doesn’t know every text to ever be published so it doesn’t understand the context, and most of the time will just bullshit an answer that’s incorrect.\nEveryone I know that uses chatGPT for school do so for either for assignments so small and simple that it doesn’t make sense to quarantine, or they use it as a more advanced google that can answer questions more accurately than a search engine could, essentially just saving time.\n(most) students are using chatGPT largely as a productivity and time management tool rather than to cheat.", ">\n\nThis is like saying “in the age of calculators, the only way to ensure kids learn maths is to ban calculators in school”. If looked at correctly, chatgpt is an effect multiplier, learning just has to be rejigged to have kids learn to do things that they can’t simply ask chatgpt to do for them.", ">\n\nLess course work and more exams is the future in a world with chatGPT.", ">\n\nChatGPT will be a big no issue soon. I work in a research field and this was something we worried about last year. As of now there are multiple tools and even more being developed that catch the use of ChatGPT. There has been research published that list ChatGPT as a co-author, but for most research, and use by students, it will simply be forbidden and will easily be caught as well. The program does well but it has a particular style that can be caught. Again it will be a non-issue soon.", ">\n\nThis is like forbidding people to use a calculator because it can give you the result instant. A better way is to teach them how to use the calculator, because its here now and won't go away. Same with GPT. Children can learn way better/faster with ChatGPD if used correctly. Imaging having a private teacher for free which helps you learning every time of the day.", ">\n\nLet me ask you this. If ChatGPT could complete a students whole assignment, what would that student have learned from doing that assignment on their own that won’t simply be replaced with ChatGPT by a employer in the future?\nEven if ChatGPT doesn’t replace workers for a decade, why teach students skills that will inevitably be replaced and leave said students jobless in a decade?\nChatGPT won’t only be used in the workforce either. Linus Tech Tips has a video showing how ChatGPT can help people learn new skills and do troubleshooting on their own. If I remember correctly, he manages to completely build a pc by only strictly following what ChatGPT tells him to. It even managed to suggest the best parts for that computers specific use case. It was nowhere near perfect, but in the future it will get there.\nSince ChatGPT is such a useful tool in the workforce and at home, I think it’s crucial we teach students how to use it instead of banning them from it. Maybe students should be given a problem and tasked to use ChatGPT to find the solution or have students attempt to learn a new topic with ChatGPT. I’m not a teacher, I just thought of those examples of the top of my head. I’m sure qualified teachers could think of better assignments than me.\nI could see ChatGPT helping a mechanic diagnose an issue so the mechanic could spend more time fixing the problem rather than diagnosing and I can think of a few examples in other jobs as well where ChatGPT will help a worker be more efficient and save more time.\nI think, if anything, we’re setting students up for failure by not teaching them about these tools that will take over the workforce and help in everyday life.", ">\n\nYou’ll still have to pass a test. Relax.", ">\n\nIt “fairs” extremely well? Maybe some additional time spent observing ChatGPT could actually benefit some", ">\n\nThere’s just no way you can use ChatGPT to do all of your work for you and be successful at any moderately high level of academic pursuit. Not without learning the material yourself, and if you’ve done that, I don’t think it matters so much whether you used chatGPT and for what along the way.\nFrankly if you start our using chatGPT early in school, you won’t even be able to ask the right questions in the right way and include the necessary refinements to do more complex and demanding assignments down the road. \nAlso, tests are still a thing aren’t they? ChatGPT doesn’t help you perform in person in a monitored environment - not in a way that would allow you to skip learning the material. I don’t really get this aspect of your cmv. As long as tests don’t allow access to ChatGPT, anyone who didn’t learn the material is going to be exposed.." ]
> The children who want to cheat will always find a way to do so. It doesn’t matter how much you do to restrict it, it’ll just make them find new means of doing so. Source: I did GCSE’s in the UK, AP in the US. Trust, kids will cheat even in sterile environments. Especially if it’s a huge room and there are few moderators. A lot of us are scared of repercussions but those who aren’t won’t let anything stand in there way—region and proctoring be damned.	[ "/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^\| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.", ">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?", ">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.", ">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?", ">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.", ">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?", ">\n\nYou mean a grade?", ">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication", ">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.", ">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)", ">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.", ">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.", ">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.", ">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.", ">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?", ">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.", ">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.", ">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.", ">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.", ">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.", ">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.", ">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.", ">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.", ">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.", ">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.", ">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.", ">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.", ">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.", ">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use", ">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.", ">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.", ">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.", ">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.", ">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.", ">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.", ">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.", ">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).", ">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.", ">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.", ">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.", ">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.", ">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.", ">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.", ">\n\n\nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \n\nWhy? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it. \n\nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \n\nWhy? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? \nLet's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project. \n\nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.\n\nTotally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator.", ">\n\nFor the most part, knowledge workers perform a given amount of work in a given amount of hours, and the number of them hired by a company is TotalHoursNeeded/NumHoursPerEmployee. E.g. if you have 100 manyears of work to get done in a typical year, you employ 100 people.\nChat GPT isn't going to \"replace\" people wholesale, because as you say someone still needs to supervise it. But it looks to be on track to increase the productivity of programmers (can write a first draft of code and finds many of the bugs instantly). \nSame for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones. \nSo now the TotalNeeded is decreased by some percentage, let's say 10% to start. Now you only need 90 human programmers to do that same work. With 25% efficiency gain, you need 75. With 50%, 50. Etc. \nOr take translation jobs. Today, an editor spends roughly 3 minutes per word editing machine translated text, and 1 minute per word editing human-translated text. As long as editors are more expensive per hour than first translation people, it still makes sense much of the time to hire translators, because the software isn't free. \nBut the graph of machine translation \"efficiency\" is trending towards taking the same amount of time to edit as a human translator. As soon as that's hit, there's literally no reason to hire human translators, only editors. \nAnd if the editing time goes down to 30 seconds/word because of further AI assistance to the editor, you only need half as many of those.", ">\n\nThere is currently two better solutions being worked on - one of which is already being used to some degree. \nThe first is ChatGPT developers themselves making moves to make AI written works to be identified by \"watermark\" or similar. I don't thi k this one has taken effect at all yet. \nAnother is by a separate dev team that allows teachers to use software to determine the amount of an essay, for example, that is written by AI what the likelihood of any one sentence or paragraph to have been written by AI. This allows the teachers to use discretion when determining if the student used the AI in a way that they find acceptable or not. This way instead kf running from the scary AI educators can actually utilize tyhe AI with students to help them develop their writing and other communications.", ">\n\nWhat about kids with transportation issues? When I was in school I knew kids that drove almost an hour each way to get there. I certainly couldn’t have asked my parents to drop everything to take me all the way to school so I could do my homework if I forgot. Bus schedules? Do you think schools want to waste more money by burning more gas for extra routes? I understand where you’re coming from, but for a fair amount of children—especially in poorer, more rural areas—that getting to school and back is such a delicate balancing act that such a thing would just punish them.", ">\n\nI've seen a few key things from academics testing out ChatGPT (I have not signed up myself):\n\nIt tends to produce confident, convincing nonsense. It doesn't actually understand what it's writing about, and I hear it shows.\nIt makes up citations. Real authors in the field, real journals... but made-up titles. Things like that, since, again, it doesn't actually understand citations.\n\nThis suggests that, for assignments requiring the demonstration of genuine, in-depth understanding, and not merely the ability to summarize facts, ChatGPT will fail.\nA similar example that you bring up in the comments is programming cheat sheets into calculators - but for well-designed engineering exams (including the licensure exams, at least in the US), cheat sheets are fine and often either allowed or provided. A well-designed exam tests the ability to apply principles, not knowledge of equations, so a cheat sheet is harmless, or even allows the exam to work better (since people aren't distracted with memorizing equations).", ">\n\nThere are three criticisms that I have of this approach. \n\n\nShould we not teach to the environment that we live in? Yes, education often imposes arbitrary constraints like time tests but for research and reports why not let people use and work around all resources? If you can work around chat gpt to work efficiently, then do it. You learn what it can and can’t do and how to use it effectively as a tool. \n\n\nCan chatGPT on it’s own actually write a good essay? From what I have seen it can pull together a few sources. It can generally write fluff based on other things that it has seen. But it struggles to write analysis. It can’t interrogate a source or make value judgements. It could be useful for doing some filler or providing ideas but if to do an actual report, I think it would be insufficient. \n\n\nAn assignment that can be done using chatgpt is probably boring. Here I am writing an essay for no reason other than I find it interesting to discuss this topic. Perhaps, we arent giving students interesting enough assignments or we are overloading them to the point that they don’t have the time to engage? If chatGPT turns out to be an issue maybe it’s more of an indictment of the structures and norms of education.", ">\n\n\n\nhomework in the form of essays, take home tests, coding assignments, would be completed on school grounds. \n\n\nCongratulations, you've invented the \"cram school\".\nI'd recommend reading through your post again and actually thinking about the things you've said. Because essentially, you're merely advocating for the wholesale elimination of homework and for education outside of that to remain totally unchanged. It's almost literally, \"Make the school day 30% longer\".\nMy solution to the \"problem\" of students potentially using ChatGPT to cheat on homework: I don't think you need a hilariously convoluted system of homework \"boiler rooms\" redolent of national security apparatus, that requires schools to adopt ruinously expensive and disruptive technological and administrative changes.\nIt would be sufficient if we institute a system whereby teachers are encouraged to, let's say... \"test\" their students, whether by regular written exams or by talking to them in what I'll call \"classes\", to ensure they understand the material they've been assigned to learn.\nThis method ensures that students cannot use AI homework bots to coast through classes (since they'll literally be found out the very next class), and has the added benefit of not adding three hours to every teacher's day.", ">\n\nWhat about pen and ink?", ">\n\narguably I can just copy a ChatGPT output by hand. So I think that is a first level measure, but not a complete solution.", ">\n\nIt's a better solution than prison just because the curriculum can't keep up with technology.\nWhen calculators arrived on everyone's phone and everyone's pocket did you advocate for the same solution? Unlikely, so why only now with this system?", ">\n\nWell I did and I was. When I was studying engineering in the 80s we routinely could not arrive at exams with a calculator. Even then calculators were programmable enough to allow students to write cheat sheets in calculator memory.\nIt forced us to memorize equations, principals of engineering, and independent thinking. I’m a better engineer because I did.", ">\n\nSo you're what, almost 60? And you think what's best for children is to be like you? Don't you think you may be a bit out of touch?\nAlso, your view was about K12 students, not engineering students.", ">\n\nNo. As I replied, leaning on tools as a crutch all your life will limit your ability and function as a human. For example, you could argue that basic math isn’t necessary. As matter of fact that was an argument years ago with the advent of calculators.\nHowever, humans should be able to exist and functions without a digital crutch. You should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator. You should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google. There are basic elements of duration necessary since we are all still wet grey matter.", ">\n\n\nYou should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator\n\nBut why?\n\nYou should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google\n\nAgain, why?\nWhere do you get your \"should\" from?\nI have basically all human knowledge in my hand, every equation or conversion I'll ever need day to day, even every language I'll likely ever encounter. Why shouldn't I leave my brain free to think about what it wants and to use my incredible resource as and when it's needed?\nDo you envision some Saw-like situation where you're locked to a wall and need to solve maths equations at pain of death?", ">\n\nThe less you use your brain the less likely your body is to maintain it. Our body functions through a use or lose it principle. Just look people who lose movement function/muscle just by being bedridden for a long time. Our brain is not different.\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.", ">\n\nIs wasting resources on process you can deletage outside not using your brain? You free up that space to put to what you decide is important.\n\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.\n\nThe weakest man with a gun can take out the strongest bodybuilder.", ">\n\nAnd if you decide Tik tok and Netflix are important? How do you think that will affect the cognitive ability of kids?\nI didn't mention strength nor physical strength. And even then the strongest man with a gun will probably take out the weakest man with a gun.(An actual fair comparison)", ">\n\nCouldn't chatgpt (or somesuch AI) be asked \"Hey - did you write this?\" and nip this sort of thing in the bud?", ">\n\nNo, Chat GPT doesn't remember everything it's said, the potential things it could say are huge and even if someone wrote something that Chat GPT might say, it could be a coincidence.", ">\n\nWell, strike that idea then.\nStill though - there must be some way to use AI to deal with this. \"set a thief to catch a thief\" and all that.", ">\n\nChat GPT (and most generative AIs) use GANs to generate content. \nIn laymen's terms (and extremely simplified as it's above my level of understanding) a GAN is 2 AI systems competing against each other, a creator AI that creates content and a checker AI that decides if the content was genuine or made by the other AI. \nSo any automated way to tell if it's AI generated can be built into the checker AI in future versions and the creator AI will learn to avoid whichever features the checker AI is spotting.", ">\n\nChatGPT is just another mechanism for reducing the need for labor, and it's not going away. \nChildren will need to be educated in both how to make effective use of it (for as long as it's not sufficient to completely eliminate mental labor), and also in the ethics of not using it. Always forcing them to write in airgapped places isn't going to do that, it just makes them resent it. \nAlso: essay writing on a scale needed to really learn long-form writing is not very amenable to doing in an airgapped classroom, because honestly we're not using dead-tree sources of information anymore already, so doing their research pretty much has to include doing it on line. \nBut really: laborious manual long-form essay writing is going to go the way of penmanship and looking things up in a library as an unneeded skill very quickly. We need children to adjust to that reality of the modern world rather than pretending it will go away. \nPeople are still needed (for now) to do the important part of writing essays without doing the laborious bit that ChatGPT automates anyway: deciding what to write, and editing it into a convincing and well-written form. \nForcing kids to spend a lot of time learning how to write the basic bulk part of essays is a lot like teaching them how to make buggy-whips in shop class: a pointless exercise. \nIt would be better to give them all prewritten ChatGPT essays and have them learn the limitations and capabilities.", ">\n\nIs ChatGPT really that much more effective than just grabbing things off Wikipedia? I was asking it things about elections and it was just Wikipedia from two years ago", ">\n\nThe answer is NEVER to limit technology. It’s to teach the new generation how to use that technology to achieve the same goal.\nIt’s pointless to ban computers and teach the memorization of dates in history class. It’s much more productive to teach online research skills so that if an individual needs to know the date of a particular moment in history, they can reliably Google it.\nChatGPT is the same. It renders writing essays as pointless, and it necessitates the teachers to adapt to new teaching styles, such as teaching the skills on how best to manipulate ChatGPT to return the information you need.", ">\n\nI was banned from using programming calculators when I studied engineering in the 80s during exams. It forced the students to all be on the same level playing field and forced us to actually know the equations, their applications, and the processes of whatever engineering course I was taking.\nIt made us better engineers.", ">\n\nHow does handicapping you make you a better engineer? If I put you and an engineer trained with technology in the same room together, who do you think would accomplish the task faster?", ">\n\nThe handicapped engineer, easily. The point of forcing students to actually learn the material is so that they understand how to reason about the underlying processes when they need to troubleshoot something going wrong, and understand the tradeoffs between approaches and how to select the best one for the task. \nOnce you understand things deeply you don't actually need training in doing things quickly because it's immediately intuitive how to apply a technological process to save time. The guy that leaned heavily on technology is basically fucked if he has to use a technique or software that he didn't specifically train on since he doesn't have a good foundation to abstract from. It would be more appropriate to call this person a technician.", ">\n\nThe purpose of calculators is to do the menial part of the work, not to solve whole processes. The engineer that learned with calculators likely knows how to select the right process to solve a problem, but uses the calculator to do the math faster and with fewer errors.", ">\n\nAt the college level, we’re not talking about tools to add and multiply. We’re talking about tools like Wolfram Alpha that do entire symbolic manipulations for you. If I took a calculus class and on all the assignments used Wolfram Alpha to find derivatives, do you think I would have learned anything?\nThat is what ChatGPT is doing for essays", ">\n\nThere are things called pencil and paper.", ">\n\nAs I said, this is the first line defense. However as I already commented to another user. I can simply hand copy ChatGPT output. Essentially not doing my own independent research, writing, coding, and studying.", ">\n\nWhy don't you consider that research? \nThe first source was the best. It's incredibly efficient research IMO.", ">\n\nThe idea of tool removal has always been flawed. From calculators to chat GPT and beyond. If your test is so flimsy that a simple tool invalidates it then the test is poorly built. Test shouldn't be simple busywork tasks, they should require thinking, problem solving, complex thought. If it's just a game of memorization that can be cheated by answers on a paper, you've built a bad test.\nover memorization (which is what our current school systems teach) is not only unhelpful, but also harmful. We live in an era of wikipedia being a reliable source, of vast access to tools both online and phsycial. We should be teaching kids they should do the work but with the help of those tools, not despite them.\nThe main issue with your argument is that based on what you've said, i can assume you think the current school system is a good one but so many studies have shown that at least here in the US, the school systems are some of the worst in the world. It's this memorize, ignore tools, singular focus mentality that plays such a big role.\nIf we were more creative with education, incorporating tool utilization into the learning process, we'd likely have a major improvement to our educational successes. I could go on about how the education system prefers certain kinds of students over others, and how many students are left behind simply because they don't learn like other kids and are therefore punished, but I won't. All I'll say is that more restrictions on how and what kids learn isn't going to help them learn more or better.\nand in 15 years when chat GPT is a part of daily life in every single company on the planet in some way or another (which I'm beyond certain it will be), kids who were taught how to properly utilize it will have just such a huge advantage in the workforce over those who weren't", ">\n\nRather than attempt to find ways to prevent new technology from interfering with existing pedagogy, shouldn't we review and revise pedagogy as new technology develops? \nIf a chat AI program can write these things, what is the point of having humans repeatedly do the same work? We don't expect people to use an abacus when doing math, or limit their research to what's in the library card catalogue, or require printed paper publications as essay resources; we adapted to the calculator, and to the internet and search engines. So too should we adapt to things like ChatGPT, not by trying to pretend it doesn't exist, but by finding ways to incorporate it into a more holistic approach to learning.\nRather than chain kids to an airgapped room on school grounds outside of school hours to do homework that's of dubious educational value in the first place, we should take this as an opportunity to refocus schooling on in-class engagement and direct instruction. ChatGPT and programs like it are showing us yet another thing we as humans can outsource to our technology, so why struggle to do things in a more difficult and inefficient way?", ">\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\nIn addition, AI is only as good as the data it is fed. You must still be able to do the work on your own to analyze when the AI is giving valid outputs (garbage in, garbage out). This is especially true, when AI runs the risks of being owned or operated by those with a specific agenda. Can you imagine the trouble that would result if people relied on AI to determine who to vote for, but someone was able to pay the operators to have the AI promote them?\nRelying on AI to do our work for us is a distillation of an appeal to authority fallacy on a large scale (if the AI says it, it must be true).", ">\n\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\n\nThis is something I worry about A LOT when it comes to AI. Our collective understanding of the subjects that we usually classify as \"the humanities\" is constantly evolving as we learn more, and especially as a more diverse set of people are allowed to study, research and put forth opinions and arguments.\nImagine if students were outsourcing all their history, psychology, sociology and philosophy homework to a chatbot with a 1950s understanding of those subjects.\nImagine doctors outsourcing psych patient diagnoses to a chatbot with the same understanding.\nOn an arguably less \"serious\" but still critically important moral and political topic, imagine if all/most videogame art was outsourced to an AI engine with a 1990s sensibility for female characters. Same for all kinds of representation and diversity.\nHow about politics and political science in general... ha!\nEtc, etc etc.\nIt is NOT the case that we already have discovered all the true answers to the big questions, and we can merely turn to a \"knowledge calculator\" like ChatGPT to spit out the truth.\nEven if AI can pretty accurately reflect the discourse of the day, as it is currently understood and accepted, our collective knowledge and culture will stagnate if we do not actively participate in developing it, and we will all pay the price for that.", ">\n\nThese are all moralistic arguments that ultimately don’t mean anything.", ">\n\nI would say they are more epistemic arguments, which do matter greatly in the context of education (which is what the op was referring to).", ">\n\nAre any of these things mentioned actually realistic concerns? Someone is going to train an AI bot to generate 90s female art characters with big tits?\nNo. Lol and even if someone did, who cares?", ">\n\nConsidering how many people believe obviously fake stories that have no supporting evidence (and in spite of contrary evidence), yes, I believe they are very real concerns.\nIf an AI says we should use Brawndo in farming because its got what plants crave (electrolytes), we should probably be able to justify it with reasoning beyond \"the AI says so.\"", ">\n\nWho is suggesting we do anything “just because an AI said so”? \nDo you read books and think everything in it is true “because the book says so”?", ">\n\nHow do you determine if what the book/ai said is false?\nYou would typically do it through a process of research and discovery.\nPeoples' ability to do research and discovery will be greatly diminished if we rely on AI to do those things for us (which is what the previous posters were suggesting).\nTherefore, reliance on AI will lead to us losing the ability to discern if the results of what the AI is saying is correct.", ">\n\nWhat? Lol that doesn’t make any sense at all. \nIt is not like if we use AI then all previous knowledge is simply forgotten or lost. It’s all still there.", ">\n\nForcing homework at school makes that \"not homework\", and this approach has never worked. You cant reject change, it never works. Every time there has been a game changing event, people adapted. Those who tried to reject change disappeared. Horse carriages disappeared from roads because something else replaced it. Some people supposedly rejected progress, but they are lying to themselves, they still use modern tech or services at some point.\nAnyway, the change is here, and it made essays irrelevant. Time to find another way to test people skills. \nGive it a little time though. ChatGPT costs a ginormous amount of money to run and will not stay free for long either.", ">\n\nIt's not just ChatGPT, the actual innovation is not the interface but lies in algorithms that can recreate natural language of similar quality with smaller data samples. There are also OpenSource datasets like ThePile, etc. so even if OpenAI moves to a paid model (and they will, quickly. You can already sign up to be first in line for the API), there will be other free providers.", ">\n\nHaving coded AIs, I disagree. ChatGPT is a regular trained AI. The novelty is the scale of the operation, and the fact there is a public API.\nNo one ever spent that much money on resources to run and train an AI publicly. I am pretty sure google has done something similar with user data sets to make their search engine and general ecosystem.\nI wish there was a way to have algorithms working with smaller data sets and produce similar results, but it kind of does not work that way.", ">\n\nThere are already tools to identify ChatGPT generated texts. Such tools will improve as another use of literally the same technology.\nJust as teachers submit essays for identifying plagiarism, teachers will submit essays for identifying AI-generated text. \nFurther, a focus could change from grading students on what they know to grading students' ability to ask meaningful, content-based questions about the subject. After all, knowing facts isn't particularly valuable as a skill. Integrating facts and discovering valuable questions is still something that remains a uniquely human skill. And is where people will continue to add value as AI becomes more advanced.", ">\n\nStudents have always been able to 'cheat' on work done outside the classroom, by copying or somehow getting others to do their work for them, even before the internet. Yes with more advanced modern technology it is easier but this has always been a concern. \nAs regular learning environments like supervised classrooms are already 'quarantined' in the way you descibe you are fundementally just suggesting an increase in learning hours as a supplement to homework. This has been suggested by many for various reasons but it would overall cuase more issues than it fixes. It increases work load on teachers and administrators, stretching already thin educational budgets, and forces increased mental strain on children. It would limit their ability to do other recreational and out of ciriculum activities. This would be disruptive and controlling when the quantity of teaching and learning time that children recive is already considered sufficiant for a good education.", ">\n\nHell the only thing stopping me from using ChatGPT regularly for my work now is that it's always at capacity.", ">\n\nApply tests that are hand written, doesnt matter how a person obtains the knowledge, actually learning the subject is most important thing.", ">\n\nThere is no amount of ChatGPT that could influence a good old oral exam where the teacher evaluates the understanding via a little chat.", ">\n\nSo tired of this view. We shouldn’t be fighting technology. Teach kids to use the resources they have to find answers. It’s such a waste of 12 years of school, teaching kids to memorize facts and follow rules. \nInstead, every test should be open book and reward the best answers. Ask the kids to show their work or explain their thought process so we reward understanding of a topic rather than memorization of steps or text.", ">\n\n20 years ago, there were already homework communities and learn groups. Even from the publishers of school books and with free access to tutors. Ok, they didnt do the final homework for me, but gave me a great starting point.\nBeing the kid who transcribes a wiki page was already stupid back then when others could call you out:\nBut I guess the actual problem is lack of digital literacy with teachers, they're always 5-10 years behind.", ">\n\nIf you are testing skills that can be done by free tools on the internet, then you are testing irrelevant skills.\nThe best way to educate kids is to test for skills they need, not skills they objectively don't.\nI was able to witness a couple of universities adapt to tests during quarantine, and follow reports on how the new methods would be used going forward.\nThe results where thus:\nMass offline testing is incredibly cost efficient (one examiner per ~300 students), but the tests results are a poor indicator of real world performance.\nOne to One testing is incredibly expensive, but can, when done right, test actual understanding and performance.\nBoth will be useful, of course. Mass testing is most useful when used in a way that students aren't incentivized to cheat, such as when framed as practice.", ">\n\nOne of the upsides of needing to prevent this kind of tech from cheating assignments is that teachers should focus on having students be able to do their homework at school. (As a former teacher, we were trying to do this already- no more than 15 min of homework per class). \nI dont think we need to do quite what you say. We just need to limit outside electronics and have in-person classrooms or computer labs with programs designed to be AI-proof. \nI have ALWAYS believed that cell phones/internet watches should be stored in school lockers (at most) and never allowed anywhere else on campus during the school day. If anyone needs to contact the students they contact the desk who relays their message/other need. Many schools already do this.", ">\n\n∆\nI agree with this. It would help.", ">\n\nThank you!", ">\n\nThat is utterly pointless.\nThere is no reason to limit the available tools.\nThis just reminds me of the entire \"you won't have a calculator wherever you go\" argument.\nSchool should instead put a focus on responsibly using available tools.", ">\n\nAnd if students choose to use them irresponsibly, what should schools do?\nAnd can you please define what constitutes responsible use? Because despite knowing about plagiarism, people still copy and paste from the internet. Perfect abstinence is easier than perfect moderation after all.", ">\n\nJust return to hand written essays and have more oral exams.", ">\n\n∆l\nActually of all comments having oral exams compliments my post and I agree with you. Enjoy the delta.", ">\n\nIn a Faraday cage.", ">\n\nIf children can just generate work with ChatGPT, it simply shows that children are not being taught anything valuable. (Once ChatGPT responses can be generated in almost unlimited amounts at very low cost, it necessarily means those responses are of low value)\nInstead shouldn't we be teaching children to provide more valuable outcomes that ChatGPT can't replicate?", ">\n\nBeing able to do on your own what ChatGPT does with access to an immense amount of data and processing power is valuable. The actual writing isn't valuable, obviously, but it would be silly to expect it to be. It's just a side effect of practice, you spend time making things of little or no value to build up the skills you'll need to make something that actually matters. That's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\nI think you'd be hard pressed to teach a class of children to outperform ChatGPT in writing without ever asking them to write something that could also be done via AI. What would that even look like?", ">\n\n\nThat's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\n\nIt is a problem. That is why I hated math class until 2nd year of university.", ">\n\nDid you start discovering novel math results in your second year of university, or was that just the point at which you first encountered problems you found interesting, despite the fact that someone else had already solved them before? Thinking back the class you didn't hate, do you think it should be removed if someone can construct an AI to give all the answers you gave?", ">\n\nThis is only a method for evaluating students, it doesn't do anything to educate them.\nChatgpt is potentially a great tool for education but trying to find complex ways around it for homework is pointless. When testing fact retention is required using school/university computers with no web browsing makes sense. For any other test or situation it's a tool that might be used.", ">\n\nI understand OPs concern. That said, I do not think you can create true quarantine for a multitude of reasons. \nThe biggest one is probably time. I worked through high school and university. Because I lived in the middle of nowhere it was about a 30 min drive to high school and then an hour to uni. Having to stay at these quarantine zones to complete assignments would have been hell on my schedule, car, and wallet. \nYou said it yourself, if someone is going to cheat, they will cheat. If I had to do the work in a quarantine zone, what exactly stops me from doing the actual work on my computer at home, printing it all out, and then just writing that into the computer at the quarantine zone? Unless you want to try having students write an entire essay in their hour long class? There has to be a point where they go home and then this falls apart.", ">\n\nThere are already lots of ways to cheat in homework and mostly our steps to deal with that amount to the honour system, and by university level, automated plagiarism detection (which can be quite easily avoided). The point you \"won't argue\" that people will cheat if given the opportunity is probably the actual crux of what's wrong with your suggestion and the part that needs a big [citation needed]. Concluding that the majority of people are fundamentally dishonest is a big assumption to handwave away. \nIf you want an education, cheating is stupid. Ultimately you might get a paper qualification out of it but you'll have actually learned nothing - you won't hold up long against someone who has done it properly when you actually have to apply the skills. Or if you do, then the assignments weren't that crucial to the learning in the first place.", ">\n\nMany of the things I learned in school were largely irrelevant. I couldn't use a calculator to do long division. After I passed those early elementary school years I never did long division again. I wouldn't even argue learning the long division algo is mandatory. It's nice to have learnt it I guess, but I spent way too many hours on it. I can see learning fundamentals of essay writing, etc, are great, but why can't we just evolve to learn more effective things in life? ChatGPT should be used as a tool, not viewed as a detriment.", ">\n\nIt'd suggest that the best way to educate them is to embrace ChatGBT and teach them to use it well. Your method is a bit like teaching kids to do math without calculators or accounting without excel or financial software. There is some value, but it runs out very quickly and you're at a social and competetive disadvantage for taking some archane principled approach to education that is more of a defense of \"how we used to do it\".\nI'm old enough to remember when using a word processor was sometime forbidden for reasons of fairness - that seems entirely disconnected now from doing good work and it's almost hard to envision the thought process of those who thought everything should be hand written for students. \nIsn't the kid who is amazing at utilizing tools like ChatGBT going to do much better in the world than the one who does not? Your idea of \"proper education\" would easily regress back to needing to do all subjects scrawled in dirt with sticks and grunted in non-standardized language.", ">\n\nOR, chatgpt will be a great boon to the entire education system:\nIncreased accessibility: ChatGPT and other AI-powered systems can provide education to individuals who otherwise would not have access to it, due to geographical, financial, or other barriers.\n\nPersonalized learning: ChatGPT can provide personalized education experiences based on each student's strengths, weaknesses, and learning style.\n\n24/7 availability: ChatGPT can operate 24/7, providing students with access to education at any time, anywhere, which can be especially beneficial for those with demanding schedules or for individuals in remote areas.\n\nScalability: ChatGPT can provide education to a large number of students simultaneously, which could help to address the shortage of teachers and resources in some areas.\n\nCost-effectiveness: ChatGPT can be a more cost-effective option for providing education compared to traditional methods, as it does not require physical classrooms or teachers.\n\nImproved student engagement: ChatGPT can provide interactive, engaging learning experiences that can hold students' attention and foster deeper learning.\n\n--Source: ChatGPT", ">\n\nThere a lots of places where texts and exams are “open book”. The questions have to be written differently, and the point is that you’re not testing someone’s ability to memorize, but rather their ability to understand. This is a more difficult test to write, so in theory AI could force education to improve since everyone would a virtual tutor with them at all times.", ">\n\nI'm a teacher and I've been thinking a lot about this the last couple months. Changes within the education system/curriculum/syllabus/retraining of teachers will take far too long to keep up with the ease of access to, and success of, chatgpt and AI in general. \nThe only solution moving forward both short and long term is to embrace it, there is no stopping it now anyway and if we don't all want to be out of a job in 5 years we need to - \n- demonstrate feasible/moral/ethical use of such tools\n- create more opportunities for collaborative learning/hands-on/problem solving tasks and ones that increase communication skills between peers. \nHow this applies to each individual, specific task will vary and must require a lot of creativity and trial and error, but I think relying too heavily on your department of education to handle this (or most 'boots on the ground' problems) will ultimately only degrade a students experience and ability for learning.", ">\n\nI'm with you on what you're trying to accomplish. I just don't know that it's the \"best\" way. \nFor instance, how is homework performed in school superior to trusting the kids to learn the material, which would then be tested by oral exam? And yes, I do believe that asking a student to verbally explain a topic is a really good way to gauge mastery.", ">\n\nThere is not a hope in hell that we'll go back to hand written stuff. That's not how technology works. As the music companies. There are better ways to show you know a subject, for sure, than the current out of-date ones. That's for sure. Have you ever taken an on-line exam?", ">\n\nI argue to let them use chatGPT as it will be their future. This is similar to my generations \"you'll never walk around with a calculator so learn math.\" The future children will grow into a society where work means utilizing AI tech to help them thrive. If chatGPT helps them write an essay, and it's good, it means they're using resources. I agree, however, that we should supplement this with actual reading and writing.", ">\n\nI would argue that most of time that ChatGPT and similar technologies is going to be an issue is in 8-12 grade and college.\nThis technology is not going away, and it's only going to improve. Personally I would treat it like calculators, audio books and spell check.\nTech kids how to use the technology properly. Sure it's somewhat handy to calculate numbers in your head, but having the ability to do math in your head does not give you much of an advantage in today's world and not being able to doesn't hurt you much. But it's still critical to know formulas and how to peace together algebraic statements and word problems. \nKnowing how to spell properly is less important than knowing proper word usage - most times you're writing something it can be spell-checked in real time. Sure it's \"terrible that today's kids...\" don't know how to spell... but it's not going to affect their career. \nEnter ChatGPT - same thing. Should I spend the time to write a white paper on the changing advertising landscape to alert my boss about the a potential seismic shift in advertising revenue, or should I ask ChatGPT to write it? As a user I have to understand its limits and potential copywrite issues, but even more importantly how to verify that what it writes is correct and targeting the right audience. Is data from before 2020 going to be recent and accurate enough for my thesis? How do I supplement the discussion with real-world data? \nThis is our new reality. We should be learning how to use the tools properly, not trying to figure out to lock it down (which frankly makes as much sense as locking down the use of calculators or spell check).", ">\n\nI think there are already apps in place that are able to detect AI generated text (Read this article).\nAlso, I think a better method would be to simply have a database of ChatGPT (could be encrypted) generated text and make it available to already existing software that is use to detect plagiarism (this is just an exemple amongst many)", ">\n\nFrankly I don’t think high schoolers and below should be given homework or tests at all. One learns magnitudes better through exploration as opposed to mindless repetition. Engage with these kids intellectually, make them free thinking Athenians, not bags of knowledge of which they have no idea how to use.\nDoes it not surprise anyone that we train people for over a decade in intellect yet hardly have any intellectuals?", ">\n\nI would argue that society would be better off spending resources on teaching children how to use this tool effectively. Knowing how to get the right answer is what matters in this world.", ">\n\nThen answer this: Well why learn math at all? Seriously.\nWhy learn he concept of subtraction let alone division? I could and society has argued that with the advent of digital calculators. \nYet we learn it. \nLater we use calculators to take the mundane and already known processes to the next level. We abstract away the mundane. \nAs a EE having worked and am working on products you may be using right now to read this, when I develop new silicon and chips I don’t break out Karnaugh maps and lay down circuit using a T square and stencils of gates. But I sure the hell know what I’m doing and expect the tools to do for me. \nTeaching fundamentals of reading, writing, arithmetic, essays, research are just that fundamental.", ">\n\nI’d argue that the vast majority don’t need anything beyond basic math anyways. \nGo ask the average adult if they know the quadratic equation and what it means and you’d probably be disappointed.", ">\n\nChatGPT is here to stay, you'd better advocate for teaching people how to make the most of it and use it wisely instead of pretending it doesn't exist.\nOne of my favourite teachers always told students to use the best tools there are.", ">\n\nI think it depends completely on the topic. In my field of study, it’s fairly easy to come up with term paper assignments that the bot would be useless for. \nLooking back at the paper I wrote last year, I don’t see how any current bot could have helped, as it isn’t able to read or summarize specific sources (yet?).\nAn example of the type of assignments we get is “Discuss the role of state capacity in x and x conflict in light of (specific research paper)‘s dimensions of state capacity - do your findings confirm the findings of (authors), why or why not?\nThis way of combining literature made it difficult even for me to be on top of it, as there were no sources that had attempted this exact combination - it has to be original. \nAlso, I find it’s the best way to learn, because you have to rely on your own judgement and there are no shortcuts, even asking the professor was unhelpful as he wasn’t too familiar with the details.", ">\n\nThis is not the best way.", ">\n\n\nThese homework rooms would have Internet connected computers for use but access to ChatGPT would be filtered and blocked.\n\nThis wouldn't be feasible, there's far too many roundabout ways to still access ChatGPT. Security measures like domain filtering are just unproductive games of whack-a-mole. \nEdit: removed all the other stuff I wrote, as those points have already been mentioned in previous top-level comments.", ">\n\nHomework shouldn’t be the go-to method of “education” to begin with. Imo Universities should focus on the integral part of education: the lectures. Tools like chatgpt can help student who are actually interested in a subject to learn more easily about it, but whether students actually learn anything or not from a class won’t change regardless of if work is authentic or copied from an AI\nSource: I’m a college student and have had experience in both supervised environments where we had to do work without the use of computers/phones and solely-online environments where many students cheated", ">\n\nWhile this could work, it is not necessarily the best way in terms of accessibility and of learning in general. \nFirst, students with ADHD and certain other conditions may not necessarily be the able to be productive at all times, or at the specific time they have to work on those computers, especially if those computers are not in an environment ideal to that specific person. It would also not be very feasible to give students enough time on these computers to complete the bigger assignments and essays. \nSecond, while ChatGPT is quite advanced, it simply works by looking at language patterns and often gets factual details incorrect. For example, with bigger coding problems, it tries to import modules that do not exist or call on functions that it has not defined. In literature, it cannot analyze texts on much more than a surface level. I will admit it can use secondary sources for textual analysis, however, it is unable to come up with a clear thesis on its own. \nAdditionally, take-home tests can be just as easily cheated on using a normal Google search, and usually test thinking skills rather than understanding and knowledge. \nFinally, essay-writing and other types of assignments are generally not ideal for learning as they are only one type of skill, and university professors are recognizing this. Not only do they not work for all learning styles, but they are only used so commonly because of tradition. University professors are structuring assignments around ways that are innovative enough that ChatGPT is unable to work on them. Along with requiring specific readings which the AI might not have access to, and citing of all sources (which has always been a requirement that the AI might trip up on), they are also going away from the traditional essay format into others. For example, I am studying literature, a relatively essay-heavy field, and in my past few courses I have been asked to analyze comics (which the AI cannot read), edit other people’s essays and articles (from past courses), create a mock syllabus or lesson plan with justifications for each reading, and create annotated bibliographies as a stepping stone to an essay. All of these not only require different skills and encourage different types of learning and research but are quite difficult for an AI to do. \nAll in all, while your suggestion is great, the very nature of the AI and the fact that it exists at all is perhaps a sign that the best course of action is to rework the way we think about evaluation. After all, if an evaluation is such that an AI can complete it without the ability to actually think (it works by using observed language patterns), then perhaps the evaluation is not ideal.", ">\n\nI bet teachers and people thought the same thing about calculators when they came out or 1990s internet. AI bots like chat GPT are just a tool.", ">\n\nAll this effectively does is train kids to accomplish goals of a type that do not exist in the real world in a situation they will never realistically encounter. A better goal is adjusting testing criteria to account for this.\nThere might be very specific sets of knowledge for which rote memorization is appropriate, and for those, the air gapped testing may be appropriate. But I believe those are the exception rather than the rule. By and large, teaching kids to effectively utilize the tools that will be available to them is what we should be doing.", ">\n\nImagine learning where the only books are hand written.\nThe printing press took out a huge amount of repetitive labor in the learning process.\nAI/ChatGPT stands a good chance of removing a huge amount knowledge labor which stands between an idea and the end product. Learning to use the AI to best effect the Idea->End Product Chain is more important than worrying about memorizing formulae we will likely never need to remember. \nThe effort to restrict ChatGPT is just education system worrying about their Cheese Being Moved.", ">\n\nThis just doesn't make any sense to me. You're arguing that we shouldn't allow students to use tools they would have at their disposal in a real working environment, and for what? Why wouldn't you want students to use every tool at their disposal? How exactly is handicapping them helping them to understand the coursework?\nA much better approach would be to fundamentally alter how we teach to better prepare them for the workforce. Encouraging collaboration and creative problem solving skills is much more practical and effective.", ">\n\nChatGPT may pass the Bar, but I highly doubt it will replace lawyers or other professionals. \nThe whole point of credentialing is to drive accountability. Anyone can study the law and cite precedent without a law degree. Actually representing a client in a court of law requires oversight and knowledge. ChatGPT isn't perfect - it will make mistakes from time to time. So who is responsible when it makes a mistake? When is a client (who is not familiar with the law) supposed to know that a mistake has been made on their behalf? For this reason, until ChatGPT is literally perfect you're always going to need a credentialed professional to review the output.\nFor the record, I think ChatGPT is wonderful. But it's a tool that people will use, not a full-fledged replacement for professionals. My employer (a Fortune 500 company) has already rejected its use for internal projects. IT has the website blocked.", ">\n\nThe kids that are educated without its use will fall behind in business when faced with kids that are using it to its fullest extent.\nYou've successfully made an argument for people to succeed in a test that is worthless in the real world. Its parameters don't match.", ">\n\nThe best way to educate children is to teach them skills and strategies that will actually serve them in the workplace of the future. \nChatGPT already has reached the point of replacing humans (See Buzzfeed news). If ChatGPT can take the test or do the homework then what value is that education going to be to these students? Especially older students will quickly see rote memorization as a waste of time and so yes they probably will cheat if they have the opportunity. Trying to force these things to be “learned” and prove that knowledge by brute force banning things is going to be a costly uphill battle.", ">\n\nWhat if we modify how essays are written by students, by asking them to include citations (which is something ChatGPT can’t do)?\nWe can’t stop new tools from making old methods obsolete. But we can focus on enhancing critical thinking of students in a stepwise manner. When a new tool is created, think about how you can adapt rather than resist it.", ">\n\nWhy not just train an ai to spot ai written papers?", ">\n\nWhat about gradually putting more emphasis on oral assignments?", ">\n\nEverything you said makes perfect sense...IF the goal was to teach children simply how to write the perfect standard essay. But that is a very limited way of viewing education and what its real goal is. The real goal of education is to teach children how to think. To come up with the right questions, not just the right answers. In a world where a \"good enough\" essay on literally anything can be conjured as if by magic by a machine, what's the actual value of that exercise now? For a very long time teachers have used the essay as a way to evaluate how a person thinks. Now that a machine can write it for you, we need new ways to evaluate how students think. That's the real task we are facing. Fuck the essay, just like we ditched the slide rule for calculators and later computers, etc. Tools change but the real game remains the same: Think for yourself!", ">\n\nI'd say the best way would be to accept the reality of changing technology and reevaluating the approach we have towards education as a whole.\nGranted, I'd say that's only one half of the picture: reassessing how we conceive if jobs and labour in the face of increasing automation goes along with that, and I think neither really works without the other.\nBottom line is that human labour is more and more obsolete as time goes on, so human jobs will be less and less in demand (I'd argue moving away from a capitalistic system is the right call, but even if you don't, automation is still an incentive).\nSince a large part of the incentive of our current education system is \"prepare you for a job\" I think the whole thing is going to fall short in light of these kinds of systems developing.\nTheres lots of people now who pursue knowledge as a project of passion, rather than a means to an end, and I think moving to a system that supports and encourages that kind of ambition is the way to go.", ">\n\nI disagree. We should learn to use the tools we have efficiently. Otherwise you are not learning for your career but for some professors ego", ">\n\nThat’s not “education in the era of ChatGPT.” That’s education in the era before ChatGPT while we figure out what the world with ChatGPT will look like so we have some idea of what to do with it.\nThat’s also not “educating,” that’s just “assessment.” Assessment is simply a measuring system for education. As long as you think of the acquisition of knowledge and skill as requiring knowledge regurgitation and skill performance in isolation and divorced from context/individualized, then you’re going to end up at necessitating a kind of geofenced, Luddite assessment model. The training itself predicates the assessment method. How we assess is defined by how we teach, and vice versa.\nThe best assessment method to gauge understanding is, and always has been, conversation.\nAll we need to do is pair assessment with regular conversation between qualified teacher and student to determine if personal comprehension is present. Not an interview, not an interrogation — conversation. Problem solving performance contexts are also great revealer of internalized knowledge and skill.\nChatGPT is a relative nonissue if your approach to assessment is at all human.\nIt’s only a problem when you’re trying to mechanize and dehumanized education. “Rigorous” does not mean “mechanical.” We are going to have to trust the professional, knowledge- and skill-assessing judgements of humans who already know and can do.\nEducation reverts to having more emphasis on apprenticeship and mentorship models, where the relationship itself is part of the learning process. \n(The “accountability!” cranks are gonna love that…)", ">\n\nI have a strong suspicion that discussions like this, while very interesting, will be obsolete long before any changes can actually be implemented in schools. In fact, I'm pretty sure schools will be gone entirely in the near future.\nAs of right now, you can be taught almost any subject by an exceptionally well-spoken, fast and infinitely patient teacher called GPT to a university level, if not higher. Try it right now - go ask GPT to explain the political situation that allowed Alexander the Great to conquer Persia, or ask it to explain the raytracing algorithm. If there's a part you don't understand, ask it to clarify. You'll be amazed how accessible it makes advanced topics.\nNow, how long before we have VR software with a realistic-looking AI teacher, with an AI-generated voice, who can do the same thing, but respond to students' voices and use body language and visual demonstrations? Five years?\nHow long after that before this tech is cheap, and of such high quality that sending your kids to school will be a worse education?\nNow in, say, 20 years, we could have an AI system that takes a DNA sample, analyses a students genotype to understand what subjects they will be naturally good at, what education approaches will be most successful, and continuously improves its model of the student's behavior by observing them. It crafts a decades-long education journey tailored to the individual, and accompanies them the entire way.\nTeachers, as far as they've existed so far, don't have a chance.", ">\n\nAre you trying to test someone or teach them?\nIf the latter, why do you care about cheating? This reminds me of the ol' teachers who used to restrict calculators because \"you won't always have a calculator with you.\"", ">\n\nYou forget that for 99% of homework students could just copy each other's work. Having the answers out in the world accessible is not a new problem. You just make homework a small part of the grades and you make sure students understand it's important to actually do it or they won't do well on the tests.", ">\n\nThere are so many people that can’t do the basic math examples you mentioned somewhere and they went to school at a time when there were no calculators.\nOn the other hand I was allowed to use calculators in school pretty much the moment I left elementary school and I am really quite good at math even without assistance.\nTool usage is one of humanities key features and trying to work against it instead of finding ways to incorporate new technology into school and life seems backwards.", ">\n\nIronically the teacher will have to use an AI to decipher the \"hand written\" assignments.", ">\n\nYou can't force people to learn.", ">\n\nWhat about teaching how to think rather than how to memorize? Just a thought 💭", ">\n\nThey need to get rid of homework, and have students do their work while they're at school. It's awful, they just pile it on, even if a class only has a little homework that day, there's like 6 or 7 classes so it's a nightmare for students. Seems like the only way to prevent cheating is have them do work in class, so I hope for the students sake, they do that.", ">\n\nI’ll throw my idea into the ring, though we’re still a few years off from this technology:\nWe should have students interact with AI tutors that can prompt them questions and point out details. Then they can collaborate on assignments, and the AI tutor can give feedback and suggest snippets. The AI can evaluate their work and their engagement with the material.", ">\n\nOne of Transformers main applications is in search. Ie you get a set of embeddings you can compare the pairwise distances between embedding and get a list of scores that tell you which embeddings are most similar to the input. \nEssentially tools like google are made to reduce the search space for a given query collect likely links and then rerank the most likely results. \nChatgpt basically does this in a more direct way of searching through a space of potential responses. Basically trained on a task to predict next token given the previous tokens or fill in a mask\nTransformers permeate everything students use from the recommendation algorithms on TikTok Facebook, YouTube to search systems in google. \nIn my opinion students should absolutely not be taught to fear these tools tho I do agree they be tested in constrained environments to challenge them. Current systems should not be used to learn unless you have a clear understanding and are willing to check every word and check your reasoning. Future systems will be much better though so this problem isn’t going anywhere. \nIf anything there should be a push to make these ideas more interpretable to a younger audience and give them the tools to navigate an increasingly complex market of ideas. They should be aware of the limitations and how when they use a piece of software their actions and the actions of those around them are influencing what they see next. \nIt should be used and taught with rigor. \nIt’s programming 2.0", ">\n\nDude no; \nChatGPT is the computer. \nDo you want to be the education system that banned the computer and then wondered why all the other education systems output modern tech workers, while your education system kept outputting chimney sweeps and car factory workers?", ">\n\nHW only exists to make students practice, and generally is worth less than 20% of the grade in a class. If a student chooses to use chat GPT to bypass it then that’s the student’s loss.\nUltimately exams are what schools use to evaluate a students knowledge and I don’t think that’s going to change anytime soon", ">\n\nThere are already programs that check if something was written by an AI or not. Also no student I know actually uses chatGPT for major assignments because chatGPT doesn’t know every text to ever be published so it doesn’t understand the context, and most of the time will just bullshit an answer that’s incorrect.\nEveryone I know that uses chatGPT for school do so for either for assignments so small and simple that it doesn’t make sense to quarantine, or they use it as a more advanced google that can answer questions more accurately than a search engine could, essentially just saving time.\n(most) students are using chatGPT largely as a productivity and time management tool rather than to cheat.", ">\n\nThis is like saying “in the age of calculators, the only way to ensure kids learn maths is to ban calculators in school”. If looked at correctly, chatgpt is an effect multiplier, learning just has to be rejigged to have kids learn to do things that they can’t simply ask chatgpt to do for them.", ">\n\nLess course work and more exams is the future in a world with chatGPT.", ">\n\nChatGPT will be a big no issue soon. I work in a research field and this was something we worried about last year. As of now there are multiple tools and even more being developed that catch the use of ChatGPT. There has been research published that list ChatGPT as a co-author, but for most research, and use by students, it will simply be forbidden and will easily be caught as well. The program does well but it has a particular style that can be caught. Again it will be a non-issue soon.", ">\n\nThis is like forbidding people to use a calculator because it can give you the result instant. A better way is to teach them how to use the calculator, because its here now and won't go away. Same with GPT. Children can learn way better/faster with ChatGPD if used correctly. Imaging having a private teacher for free which helps you learning every time of the day.", ">\n\nLet me ask you this. If ChatGPT could complete a students whole assignment, what would that student have learned from doing that assignment on their own that won’t simply be replaced with ChatGPT by a employer in the future?\nEven if ChatGPT doesn’t replace workers for a decade, why teach students skills that will inevitably be replaced and leave said students jobless in a decade?\nChatGPT won’t only be used in the workforce either. Linus Tech Tips has a video showing how ChatGPT can help people learn new skills and do troubleshooting on their own. If I remember correctly, he manages to completely build a pc by only strictly following what ChatGPT tells him to. It even managed to suggest the best parts for that computers specific use case. It was nowhere near perfect, but in the future it will get there.\nSince ChatGPT is such a useful tool in the workforce and at home, I think it’s crucial we teach students how to use it instead of banning them from it. Maybe students should be given a problem and tasked to use ChatGPT to find the solution or have students attempt to learn a new topic with ChatGPT. I’m not a teacher, I just thought of those examples of the top of my head. I’m sure qualified teachers could think of better assignments than me.\nI could see ChatGPT helping a mechanic diagnose an issue so the mechanic could spend more time fixing the problem rather than diagnosing and I can think of a few examples in other jobs as well where ChatGPT will help a worker be more efficient and save more time.\nI think, if anything, we’re setting students up for failure by not teaching them about these tools that will take over the workforce and help in everyday life.", ">\n\nYou’ll still have to pass a test. Relax.", ">\n\nIt “fairs” extremely well? Maybe some additional time spent observing ChatGPT could actually benefit some", ">\n\nThere’s just no way you can use ChatGPT to do all of your work for you and be successful at any moderately high level of academic pursuit. Not without learning the material yourself, and if you’ve done that, I don’t think it matters so much whether you used chatGPT and for what along the way.\nFrankly if you start our using chatGPT early in school, you won’t even be able to ask the right questions in the right way and include the necessary refinements to do more complex and demanding assignments down the road. \nAlso, tests are still a thing aren’t they? ChatGPT doesn’t help you perform in person in a monitored environment - not in a way that would allow you to skip learning the material. I don’t really get this aspect of your cmv. As long as tests don’t allow access to ChatGPT, anyone who didn’t learn the material is going to be exposed..", ">\n\nThere are already programs that detect ChatGPT writing." ]
> I require them to complete an outline first. Outline must be submitted to me before I take the essay. Google doc lets you see that they write it and when each sentence was written. It’s helped.	[ "/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^\| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.", ">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?", ">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.", ">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?", ">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.", ">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?", ">\n\nYou mean a grade?", ">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication", ">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.", ">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)", ">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.", ">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.", ">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.", ">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.", ">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?", ">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.", ">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.", ">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.", ">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.", ">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.", ">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.", ">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.", ">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.", ">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.", ">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.", ">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.", ">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.", ">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.", ">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use", ">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.", ">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.", ">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.", ">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.", ">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.", ">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.", ">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.", ">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).", ">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.", ">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.", ">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.", ">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.", ">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.", ">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.", ">\n\n\nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \n\nWhy? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it. \n\nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \n\nWhy? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? \nLet's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project. \n\nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.\n\nTotally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator.", ">\n\nFor the most part, knowledge workers perform a given amount of work in a given amount of hours, and the number of them hired by a company is TotalHoursNeeded/NumHoursPerEmployee. E.g. if you have 100 manyears of work to get done in a typical year, you employ 100 people.\nChat GPT isn't going to \"replace\" people wholesale, because as you say someone still needs to supervise it. But it looks to be on track to increase the productivity of programmers (can write a first draft of code and finds many of the bugs instantly). \nSame for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones. \nSo now the TotalNeeded is decreased by some percentage, let's say 10% to start. Now you only need 90 human programmers to do that same work. With 25% efficiency gain, you need 75. With 50%, 50. Etc. \nOr take translation jobs. Today, an editor spends roughly 3 minutes per word editing machine translated text, and 1 minute per word editing human-translated text. As long as editors are more expensive per hour than first translation people, it still makes sense much of the time to hire translators, because the software isn't free. \nBut the graph of machine translation \"efficiency\" is trending towards taking the same amount of time to edit as a human translator. As soon as that's hit, there's literally no reason to hire human translators, only editors. \nAnd if the editing time goes down to 30 seconds/word because of further AI assistance to the editor, you only need half as many of those.", ">\n\nThere is currently two better solutions being worked on - one of which is already being used to some degree. \nThe first is ChatGPT developers themselves making moves to make AI written works to be identified by \"watermark\" or similar. I don't thi k this one has taken effect at all yet. \nAnother is by a separate dev team that allows teachers to use software to determine the amount of an essay, for example, that is written by AI what the likelihood of any one sentence or paragraph to have been written by AI. This allows the teachers to use discretion when determining if the student used the AI in a way that they find acceptable or not. This way instead kf running from the scary AI educators can actually utilize tyhe AI with students to help them develop their writing and other communications.", ">\n\nWhat about kids with transportation issues? When I was in school I knew kids that drove almost an hour each way to get there. I certainly couldn’t have asked my parents to drop everything to take me all the way to school so I could do my homework if I forgot. Bus schedules? Do you think schools want to waste more money by burning more gas for extra routes? I understand where you’re coming from, but for a fair amount of children—especially in poorer, more rural areas—that getting to school and back is such a delicate balancing act that such a thing would just punish them.", ">\n\nI've seen a few key things from academics testing out ChatGPT (I have not signed up myself):\n\nIt tends to produce confident, convincing nonsense. It doesn't actually understand what it's writing about, and I hear it shows.\nIt makes up citations. Real authors in the field, real journals... but made-up titles. Things like that, since, again, it doesn't actually understand citations.\n\nThis suggests that, for assignments requiring the demonstration of genuine, in-depth understanding, and not merely the ability to summarize facts, ChatGPT will fail.\nA similar example that you bring up in the comments is programming cheat sheets into calculators - but for well-designed engineering exams (including the licensure exams, at least in the US), cheat sheets are fine and often either allowed or provided. A well-designed exam tests the ability to apply principles, not knowledge of equations, so a cheat sheet is harmless, or even allows the exam to work better (since people aren't distracted with memorizing equations).", ">\n\nThere are three criticisms that I have of this approach. \n\n\nShould we not teach to the environment that we live in? Yes, education often imposes arbitrary constraints like time tests but for research and reports why not let people use and work around all resources? If you can work around chat gpt to work efficiently, then do it. You learn what it can and can’t do and how to use it effectively as a tool. \n\n\nCan chatGPT on it’s own actually write a good essay? From what I have seen it can pull together a few sources. It can generally write fluff based on other things that it has seen. But it struggles to write analysis. It can’t interrogate a source or make value judgements. It could be useful for doing some filler or providing ideas but if to do an actual report, I think it would be insufficient. \n\n\nAn assignment that can be done using chatgpt is probably boring. Here I am writing an essay for no reason other than I find it interesting to discuss this topic. Perhaps, we arent giving students interesting enough assignments or we are overloading them to the point that they don’t have the time to engage? If chatGPT turns out to be an issue maybe it’s more of an indictment of the structures and norms of education.", ">\n\n\n\nhomework in the form of essays, take home tests, coding assignments, would be completed on school grounds. \n\n\nCongratulations, you've invented the \"cram school\".\nI'd recommend reading through your post again and actually thinking about the things you've said. Because essentially, you're merely advocating for the wholesale elimination of homework and for education outside of that to remain totally unchanged. It's almost literally, \"Make the school day 30% longer\".\nMy solution to the \"problem\" of students potentially using ChatGPT to cheat on homework: I don't think you need a hilariously convoluted system of homework \"boiler rooms\" redolent of national security apparatus, that requires schools to adopt ruinously expensive and disruptive technological and administrative changes.\nIt would be sufficient if we institute a system whereby teachers are encouraged to, let's say... \"test\" their students, whether by regular written exams or by talking to them in what I'll call \"classes\", to ensure they understand the material they've been assigned to learn.\nThis method ensures that students cannot use AI homework bots to coast through classes (since they'll literally be found out the very next class), and has the added benefit of not adding three hours to every teacher's day.", ">\n\nWhat about pen and ink?", ">\n\narguably I can just copy a ChatGPT output by hand. So I think that is a first level measure, but not a complete solution.", ">\n\nIt's a better solution than prison just because the curriculum can't keep up with technology.\nWhen calculators arrived on everyone's phone and everyone's pocket did you advocate for the same solution? Unlikely, so why only now with this system?", ">\n\nWell I did and I was. When I was studying engineering in the 80s we routinely could not arrive at exams with a calculator. Even then calculators were programmable enough to allow students to write cheat sheets in calculator memory.\nIt forced us to memorize equations, principals of engineering, and independent thinking. I’m a better engineer because I did.", ">\n\nSo you're what, almost 60? And you think what's best for children is to be like you? Don't you think you may be a bit out of touch?\nAlso, your view was about K12 students, not engineering students.", ">\n\nNo. As I replied, leaning on tools as a crutch all your life will limit your ability and function as a human. For example, you could argue that basic math isn’t necessary. As matter of fact that was an argument years ago with the advent of calculators.\nHowever, humans should be able to exist and functions without a digital crutch. You should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator. You should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google. There are basic elements of duration necessary since we are all still wet grey matter.", ">\n\n\nYou should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator\n\nBut why?\n\nYou should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google\n\nAgain, why?\nWhere do you get your \"should\" from?\nI have basically all human knowledge in my hand, every equation or conversion I'll ever need day to day, even every language I'll likely ever encounter. Why shouldn't I leave my brain free to think about what it wants and to use my incredible resource as and when it's needed?\nDo you envision some Saw-like situation where you're locked to a wall and need to solve maths equations at pain of death?", ">\n\nThe less you use your brain the less likely your body is to maintain it. Our body functions through a use or lose it principle. Just look people who lose movement function/muscle just by being bedridden for a long time. Our brain is not different.\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.", ">\n\nIs wasting resources on process you can deletage outside not using your brain? You free up that space to put to what you decide is important.\n\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.\n\nThe weakest man with a gun can take out the strongest bodybuilder.", ">\n\nAnd if you decide Tik tok and Netflix are important? How do you think that will affect the cognitive ability of kids?\nI didn't mention strength nor physical strength. And even then the strongest man with a gun will probably take out the weakest man with a gun.(An actual fair comparison)", ">\n\nCouldn't chatgpt (or somesuch AI) be asked \"Hey - did you write this?\" and nip this sort of thing in the bud?", ">\n\nNo, Chat GPT doesn't remember everything it's said, the potential things it could say are huge and even if someone wrote something that Chat GPT might say, it could be a coincidence.", ">\n\nWell, strike that idea then.\nStill though - there must be some way to use AI to deal with this. \"set a thief to catch a thief\" and all that.", ">\n\nChat GPT (and most generative AIs) use GANs to generate content. \nIn laymen's terms (and extremely simplified as it's above my level of understanding) a GAN is 2 AI systems competing against each other, a creator AI that creates content and a checker AI that decides if the content was genuine or made by the other AI. \nSo any automated way to tell if it's AI generated can be built into the checker AI in future versions and the creator AI will learn to avoid whichever features the checker AI is spotting.", ">\n\nChatGPT is just another mechanism for reducing the need for labor, and it's not going away. \nChildren will need to be educated in both how to make effective use of it (for as long as it's not sufficient to completely eliminate mental labor), and also in the ethics of not using it. Always forcing them to write in airgapped places isn't going to do that, it just makes them resent it. \nAlso: essay writing on a scale needed to really learn long-form writing is not very amenable to doing in an airgapped classroom, because honestly we're not using dead-tree sources of information anymore already, so doing their research pretty much has to include doing it on line. \nBut really: laborious manual long-form essay writing is going to go the way of penmanship and looking things up in a library as an unneeded skill very quickly. We need children to adjust to that reality of the modern world rather than pretending it will go away. \nPeople are still needed (for now) to do the important part of writing essays without doing the laborious bit that ChatGPT automates anyway: deciding what to write, and editing it into a convincing and well-written form. \nForcing kids to spend a lot of time learning how to write the basic bulk part of essays is a lot like teaching them how to make buggy-whips in shop class: a pointless exercise. \nIt would be better to give them all prewritten ChatGPT essays and have them learn the limitations and capabilities.", ">\n\nIs ChatGPT really that much more effective than just grabbing things off Wikipedia? I was asking it things about elections and it was just Wikipedia from two years ago", ">\n\nThe answer is NEVER to limit technology. It’s to teach the new generation how to use that technology to achieve the same goal.\nIt’s pointless to ban computers and teach the memorization of dates in history class. It’s much more productive to teach online research skills so that if an individual needs to know the date of a particular moment in history, they can reliably Google it.\nChatGPT is the same. It renders writing essays as pointless, and it necessitates the teachers to adapt to new teaching styles, such as teaching the skills on how best to manipulate ChatGPT to return the information you need.", ">\n\nI was banned from using programming calculators when I studied engineering in the 80s during exams. It forced the students to all be on the same level playing field and forced us to actually know the equations, their applications, and the processes of whatever engineering course I was taking.\nIt made us better engineers.", ">\n\nHow does handicapping you make you a better engineer? If I put you and an engineer trained with technology in the same room together, who do you think would accomplish the task faster?", ">\n\nThe handicapped engineer, easily. The point of forcing students to actually learn the material is so that they understand how to reason about the underlying processes when they need to troubleshoot something going wrong, and understand the tradeoffs between approaches and how to select the best one for the task. \nOnce you understand things deeply you don't actually need training in doing things quickly because it's immediately intuitive how to apply a technological process to save time. The guy that leaned heavily on technology is basically fucked if he has to use a technique or software that he didn't specifically train on since he doesn't have a good foundation to abstract from. It would be more appropriate to call this person a technician.", ">\n\nThe purpose of calculators is to do the menial part of the work, not to solve whole processes. The engineer that learned with calculators likely knows how to select the right process to solve a problem, but uses the calculator to do the math faster and with fewer errors.", ">\n\nAt the college level, we’re not talking about tools to add and multiply. We’re talking about tools like Wolfram Alpha that do entire symbolic manipulations for you. If I took a calculus class and on all the assignments used Wolfram Alpha to find derivatives, do you think I would have learned anything?\nThat is what ChatGPT is doing for essays", ">\n\nThere are things called pencil and paper.", ">\n\nAs I said, this is the first line defense. However as I already commented to another user. I can simply hand copy ChatGPT output. Essentially not doing my own independent research, writing, coding, and studying.", ">\n\nWhy don't you consider that research? \nThe first source was the best. It's incredibly efficient research IMO.", ">\n\nThe idea of tool removal has always been flawed. From calculators to chat GPT and beyond. If your test is so flimsy that a simple tool invalidates it then the test is poorly built. Test shouldn't be simple busywork tasks, they should require thinking, problem solving, complex thought. If it's just a game of memorization that can be cheated by answers on a paper, you've built a bad test.\nover memorization (which is what our current school systems teach) is not only unhelpful, but also harmful. We live in an era of wikipedia being a reliable source, of vast access to tools both online and phsycial. We should be teaching kids they should do the work but with the help of those tools, not despite them.\nThe main issue with your argument is that based on what you've said, i can assume you think the current school system is a good one but so many studies have shown that at least here in the US, the school systems are some of the worst in the world. It's this memorize, ignore tools, singular focus mentality that plays such a big role.\nIf we were more creative with education, incorporating tool utilization into the learning process, we'd likely have a major improvement to our educational successes. I could go on about how the education system prefers certain kinds of students over others, and how many students are left behind simply because they don't learn like other kids and are therefore punished, but I won't. All I'll say is that more restrictions on how and what kids learn isn't going to help them learn more or better.\nand in 15 years when chat GPT is a part of daily life in every single company on the planet in some way or another (which I'm beyond certain it will be), kids who were taught how to properly utilize it will have just such a huge advantage in the workforce over those who weren't", ">\n\nRather than attempt to find ways to prevent new technology from interfering with existing pedagogy, shouldn't we review and revise pedagogy as new technology develops? \nIf a chat AI program can write these things, what is the point of having humans repeatedly do the same work? We don't expect people to use an abacus when doing math, or limit their research to what's in the library card catalogue, or require printed paper publications as essay resources; we adapted to the calculator, and to the internet and search engines. So too should we adapt to things like ChatGPT, not by trying to pretend it doesn't exist, but by finding ways to incorporate it into a more holistic approach to learning.\nRather than chain kids to an airgapped room on school grounds outside of school hours to do homework that's of dubious educational value in the first place, we should take this as an opportunity to refocus schooling on in-class engagement and direct instruction. ChatGPT and programs like it are showing us yet another thing we as humans can outsource to our technology, so why struggle to do things in a more difficult and inefficient way?", ">\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\nIn addition, AI is only as good as the data it is fed. You must still be able to do the work on your own to analyze when the AI is giving valid outputs (garbage in, garbage out). This is especially true, when AI runs the risks of being owned or operated by those with a specific agenda. Can you imagine the trouble that would result if people relied on AI to determine who to vote for, but someone was able to pay the operators to have the AI promote them?\nRelying on AI to do our work for us is a distillation of an appeal to authority fallacy on a large scale (if the AI says it, it must be true).", ">\n\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\n\nThis is something I worry about A LOT when it comes to AI. Our collective understanding of the subjects that we usually classify as \"the humanities\" is constantly evolving as we learn more, and especially as a more diverse set of people are allowed to study, research and put forth opinions and arguments.\nImagine if students were outsourcing all their history, psychology, sociology and philosophy homework to a chatbot with a 1950s understanding of those subjects.\nImagine doctors outsourcing psych patient diagnoses to a chatbot with the same understanding.\nOn an arguably less \"serious\" but still critically important moral and political topic, imagine if all/most videogame art was outsourced to an AI engine with a 1990s sensibility for female characters. Same for all kinds of representation and diversity.\nHow about politics and political science in general... ha!\nEtc, etc etc.\nIt is NOT the case that we already have discovered all the true answers to the big questions, and we can merely turn to a \"knowledge calculator\" like ChatGPT to spit out the truth.\nEven if AI can pretty accurately reflect the discourse of the day, as it is currently understood and accepted, our collective knowledge and culture will stagnate if we do not actively participate in developing it, and we will all pay the price for that.", ">\n\nThese are all moralistic arguments that ultimately don’t mean anything.", ">\n\nI would say they are more epistemic arguments, which do matter greatly in the context of education (which is what the op was referring to).", ">\n\nAre any of these things mentioned actually realistic concerns? Someone is going to train an AI bot to generate 90s female art characters with big tits?\nNo. Lol and even if someone did, who cares?", ">\n\nConsidering how many people believe obviously fake stories that have no supporting evidence (and in spite of contrary evidence), yes, I believe they are very real concerns.\nIf an AI says we should use Brawndo in farming because its got what plants crave (electrolytes), we should probably be able to justify it with reasoning beyond \"the AI says so.\"", ">\n\nWho is suggesting we do anything “just because an AI said so”? \nDo you read books and think everything in it is true “because the book says so”?", ">\n\nHow do you determine if what the book/ai said is false?\nYou would typically do it through a process of research and discovery.\nPeoples' ability to do research and discovery will be greatly diminished if we rely on AI to do those things for us (which is what the previous posters were suggesting).\nTherefore, reliance on AI will lead to us losing the ability to discern if the results of what the AI is saying is correct.", ">\n\nWhat? Lol that doesn’t make any sense at all. \nIt is not like if we use AI then all previous knowledge is simply forgotten or lost. It’s all still there.", ">\n\nForcing homework at school makes that \"not homework\", and this approach has never worked. You cant reject change, it never works. Every time there has been a game changing event, people adapted. Those who tried to reject change disappeared. Horse carriages disappeared from roads because something else replaced it. Some people supposedly rejected progress, but they are lying to themselves, they still use modern tech or services at some point.\nAnyway, the change is here, and it made essays irrelevant. Time to find another way to test people skills. \nGive it a little time though. ChatGPT costs a ginormous amount of money to run and will not stay free for long either.", ">\n\nIt's not just ChatGPT, the actual innovation is not the interface but lies in algorithms that can recreate natural language of similar quality with smaller data samples. There are also OpenSource datasets like ThePile, etc. so even if OpenAI moves to a paid model (and they will, quickly. You can already sign up to be first in line for the API), there will be other free providers.", ">\n\nHaving coded AIs, I disagree. ChatGPT is a regular trained AI. The novelty is the scale of the operation, and the fact there is a public API.\nNo one ever spent that much money on resources to run and train an AI publicly. I am pretty sure google has done something similar with user data sets to make their search engine and general ecosystem.\nI wish there was a way to have algorithms working with smaller data sets and produce similar results, but it kind of does not work that way.", ">\n\nThere are already tools to identify ChatGPT generated texts. Such tools will improve as another use of literally the same technology.\nJust as teachers submit essays for identifying plagiarism, teachers will submit essays for identifying AI-generated text. \nFurther, a focus could change from grading students on what they know to grading students' ability to ask meaningful, content-based questions about the subject. After all, knowing facts isn't particularly valuable as a skill. Integrating facts and discovering valuable questions is still something that remains a uniquely human skill. And is where people will continue to add value as AI becomes more advanced.", ">\n\nStudents have always been able to 'cheat' on work done outside the classroom, by copying or somehow getting others to do their work for them, even before the internet. Yes with more advanced modern technology it is easier but this has always been a concern. \nAs regular learning environments like supervised classrooms are already 'quarantined' in the way you descibe you are fundementally just suggesting an increase in learning hours as a supplement to homework. This has been suggested by many for various reasons but it would overall cuase more issues than it fixes. It increases work load on teachers and administrators, stretching already thin educational budgets, and forces increased mental strain on children. It would limit their ability to do other recreational and out of ciriculum activities. This would be disruptive and controlling when the quantity of teaching and learning time that children recive is already considered sufficiant for a good education.", ">\n\nHell the only thing stopping me from using ChatGPT regularly for my work now is that it's always at capacity.", ">\n\nApply tests that are hand written, doesnt matter how a person obtains the knowledge, actually learning the subject is most important thing.", ">\n\nThere is no amount of ChatGPT that could influence a good old oral exam where the teacher evaluates the understanding via a little chat.", ">\n\nSo tired of this view. We shouldn’t be fighting technology. Teach kids to use the resources they have to find answers. It’s such a waste of 12 years of school, teaching kids to memorize facts and follow rules. \nInstead, every test should be open book and reward the best answers. Ask the kids to show their work or explain their thought process so we reward understanding of a topic rather than memorization of steps or text.", ">\n\n20 years ago, there were already homework communities and learn groups. Even from the publishers of school books and with free access to tutors. Ok, they didnt do the final homework for me, but gave me a great starting point.\nBeing the kid who transcribes a wiki page was already stupid back then when others could call you out:\nBut I guess the actual problem is lack of digital literacy with teachers, they're always 5-10 years behind.", ">\n\nIf you are testing skills that can be done by free tools on the internet, then you are testing irrelevant skills.\nThe best way to educate kids is to test for skills they need, not skills they objectively don't.\nI was able to witness a couple of universities adapt to tests during quarantine, and follow reports on how the new methods would be used going forward.\nThe results where thus:\nMass offline testing is incredibly cost efficient (one examiner per ~300 students), but the tests results are a poor indicator of real world performance.\nOne to One testing is incredibly expensive, but can, when done right, test actual understanding and performance.\nBoth will be useful, of course. Mass testing is most useful when used in a way that students aren't incentivized to cheat, such as when framed as practice.", ">\n\nOne of the upsides of needing to prevent this kind of tech from cheating assignments is that teachers should focus on having students be able to do their homework at school. (As a former teacher, we were trying to do this already- no more than 15 min of homework per class). \nI dont think we need to do quite what you say. We just need to limit outside electronics and have in-person classrooms or computer labs with programs designed to be AI-proof. \nI have ALWAYS believed that cell phones/internet watches should be stored in school lockers (at most) and never allowed anywhere else on campus during the school day. If anyone needs to contact the students they contact the desk who relays their message/other need. Many schools already do this.", ">\n\n∆\nI agree with this. It would help.", ">\n\nThank you!", ">\n\nThat is utterly pointless.\nThere is no reason to limit the available tools.\nThis just reminds me of the entire \"you won't have a calculator wherever you go\" argument.\nSchool should instead put a focus on responsibly using available tools.", ">\n\nAnd if students choose to use them irresponsibly, what should schools do?\nAnd can you please define what constitutes responsible use? Because despite knowing about plagiarism, people still copy and paste from the internet. Perfect abstinence is easier than perfect moderation after all.", ">\n\nJust return to hand written essays and have more oral exams.", ">\n\n∆l\nActually of all comments having oral exams compliments my post and I agree with you. Enjoy the delta.", ">\n\nIn a Faraday cage.", ">\n\nIf children can just generate work with ChatGPT, it simply shows that children are not being taught anything valuable. (Once ChatGPT responses can be generated in almost unlimited amounts at very low cost, it necessarily means those responses are of low value)\nInstead shouldn't we be teaching children to provide more valuable outcomes that ChatGPT can't replicate?", ">\n\nBeing able to do on your own what ChatGPT does with access to an immense amount of data and processing power is valuable. The actual writing isn't valuable, obviously, but it would be silly to expect it to be. It's just a side effect of practice, you spend time making things of little or no value to build up the skills you'll need to make something that actually matters. That's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\nI think you'd be hard pressed to teach a class of children to outperform ChatGPT in writing without ever asking them to write something that could also be done via AI. What would that even look like?", ">\n\n\nThat's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\n\nIt is a problem. That is why I hated math class until 2nd year of university.", ">\n\nDid you start discovering novel math results in your second year of university, or was that just the point at which you first encountered problems you found interesting, despite the fact that someone else had already solved them before? Thinking back the class you didn't hate, do you think it should be removed if someone can construct an AI to give all the answers you gave?", ">\n\nThis is only a method for evaluating students, it doesn't do anything to educate them.\nChatgpt is potentially a great tool for education but trying to find complex ways around it for homework is pointless. When testing fact retention is required using school/university computers with no web browsing makes sense. For any other test or situation it's a tool that might be used.", ">\n\nI understand OPs concern. That said, I do not think you can create true quarantine for a multitude of reasons. \nThe biggest one is probably time. I worked through high school and university. Because I lived in the middle of nowhere it was about a 30 min drive to high school and then an hour to uni. Having to stay at these quarantine zones to complete assignments would have been hell on my schedule, car, and wallet. \nYou said it yourself, if someone is going to cheat, they will cheat. If I had to do the work in a quarantine zone, what exactly stops me from doing the actual work on my computer at home, printing it all out, and then just writing that into the computer at the quarantine zone? Unless you want to try having students write an entire essay in their hour long class? There has to be a point where they go home and then this falls apart.", ">\n\nThere are already lots of ways to cheat in homework and mostly our steps to deal with that amount to the honour system, and by university level, automated plagiarism detection (which can be quite easily avoided). The point you \"won't argue\" that people will cheat if given the opportunity is probably the actual crux of what's wrong with your suggestion and the part that needs a big [citation needed]. Concluding that the majority of people are fundamentally dishonest is a big assumption to handwave away. \nIf you want an education, cheating is stupid. Ultimately you might get a paper qualification out of it but you'll have actually learned nothing - you won't hold up long against someone who has done it properly when you actually have to apply the skills. Or if you do, then the assignments weren't that crucial to the learning in the first place.", ">\n\nMany of the things I learned in school were largely irrelevant. I couldn't use a calculator to do long division. After I passed those early elementary school years I never did long division again. I wouldn't even argue learning the long division algo is mandatory. It's nice to have learnt it I guess, but I spent way too many hours on it. I can see learning fundamentals of essay writing, etc, are great, but why can't we just evolve to learn more effective things in life? ChatGPT should be used as a tool, not viewed as a detriment.", ">\n\nIt'd suggest that the best way to educate them is to embrace ChatGBT and teach them to use it well. Your method is a bit like teaching kids to do math without calculators or accounting without excel or financial software. There is some value, but it runs out very quickly and you're at a social and competetive disadvantage for taking some archane principled approach to education that is more of a defense of \"how we used to do it\".\nI'm old enough to remember when using a word processor was sometime forbidden for reasons of fairness - that seems entirely disconnected now from doing good work and it's almost hard to envision the thought process of those who thought everything should be hand written for students. \nIsn't the kid who is amazing at utilizing tools like ChatGBT going to do much better in the world than the one who does not? Your idea of \"proper education\" would easily regress back to needing to do all subjects scrawled in dirt with sticks and grunted in non-standardized language.", ">\n\nOR, chatgpt will be a great boon to the entire education system:\nIncreased accessibility: ChatGPT and other AI-powered systems can provide education to individuals who otherwise would not have access to it, due to geographical, financial, or other barriers.\n\nPersonalized learning: ChatGPT can provide personalized education experiences based on each student's strengths, weaknesses, and learning style.\n\n24/7 availability: ChatGPT can operate 24/7, providing students with access to education at any time, anywhere, which can be especially beneficial for those with demanding schedules or for individuals in remote areas.\n\nScalability: ChatGPT can provide education to a large number of students simultaneously, which could help to address the shortage of teachers and resources in some areas.\n\nCost-effectiveness: ChatGPT can be a more cost-effective option for providing education compared to traditional methods, as it does not require physical classrooms or teachers.\n\nImproved student engagement: ChatGPT can provide interactive, engaging learning experiences that can hold students' attention and foster deeper learning.\n\n--Source: ChatGPT", ">\n\nThere a lots of places where texts and exams are “open book”. The questions have to be written differently, and the point is that you’re not testing someone’s ability to memorize, but rather their ability to understand. This is a more difficult test to write, so in theory AI could force education to improve since everyone would a virtual tutor with them at all times.", ">\n\nI'm a teacher and I've been thinking a lot about this the last couple months. Changes within the education system/curriculum/syllabus/retraining of teachers will take far too long to keep up with the ease of access to, and success of, chatgpt and AI in general. \nThe only solution moving forward both short and long term is to embrace it, there is no stopping it now anyway and if we don't all want to be out of a job in 5 years we need to - \n- demonstrate feasible/moral/ethical use of such tools\n- create more opportunities for collaborative learning/hands-on/problem solving tasks and ones that increase communication skills between peers. \nHow this applies to each individual, specific task will vary and must require a lot of creativity and trial and error, but I think relying too heavily on your department of education to handle this (or most 'boots on the ground' problems) will ultimately only degrade a students experience and ability for learning.", ">\n\nI'm with you on what you're trying to accomplish. I just don't know that it's the \"best\" way. \nFor instance, how is homework performed in school superior to trusting the kids to learn the material, which would then be tested by oral exam? And yes, I do believe that asking a student to verbally explain a topic is a really good way to gauge mastery.", ">\n\nThere is not a hope in hell that we'll go back to hand written stuff. That's not how technology works. As the music companies. There are better ways to show you know a subject, for sure, than the current out of-date ones. That's for sure. Have you ever taken an on-line exam?", ">\n\nI argue to let them use chatGPT as it will be their future. This is similar to my generations \"you'll never walk around with a calculator so learn math.\" The future children will grow into a society where work means utilizing AI tech to help them thrive. If chatGPT helps them write an essay, and it's good, it means they're using resources. I agree, however, that we should supplement this with actual reading and writing.", ">\n\nI would argue that most of time that ChatGPT and similar technologies is going to be an issue is in 8-12 grade and college.\nThis technology is not going away, and it's only going to improve. Personally I would treat it like calculators, audio books and spell check.\nTech kids how to use the technology properly. Sure it's somewhat handy to calculate numbers in your head, but having the ability to do math in your head does not give you much of an advantage in today's world and not being able to doesn't hurt you much. But it's still critical to know formulas and how to peace together algebraic statements and word problems. \nKnowing how to spell properly is less important than knowing proper word usage - most times you're writing something it can be spell-checked in real time. Sure it's \"terrible that today's kids...\" don't know how to spell... but it's not going to affect their career. \nEnter ChatGPT - same thing. Should I spend the time to write a white paper on the changing advertising landscape to alert my boss about the a potential seismic shift in advertising revenue, or should I ask ChatGPT to write it? As a user I have to understand its limits and potential copywrite issues, but even more importantly how to verify that what it writes is correct and targeting the right audience. Is data from before 2020 going to be recent and accurate enough for my thesis? How do I supplement the discussion with real-world data? \nThis is our new reality. We should be learning how to use the tools properly, not trying to figure out to lock it down (which frankly makes as much sense as locking down the use of calculators or spell check).", ">\n\nI think there are already apps in place that are able to detect AI generated text (Read this article).\nAlso, I think a better method would be to simply have a database of ChatGPT (could be encrypted) generated text and make it available to already existing software that is use to detect plagiarism (this is just an exemple amongst many)", ">\n\nFrankly I don’t think high schoolers and below should be given homework or tests at all. One learns magnitudes better through exploration as opposed to mindless repetition. Engage with these kids intellectually, make them free thinking Athenians, not bags of knowledge of which they have no idea how to use.\nDoes it not surprise anyone that we train people for over a decade in intellect yet hardly have any intellectuals?", ">\n\nI would argue that society would be better off spending resources on teaching children how to use this tool effectively. Knowing how to get the right answer is what matters in this world.", ">\n\nThen answer this: Well why learn math at all? Seriously.\nWhy learn he concept of subtraction let alone division? I could and society has argued that with the advent of digital calculators. \nYet we learn it. \nLater we use calculators to take the mundane and already known processes to the next level. We abstract away the mundane. \nAs a EE having worked and am working on products you may be using right now to read this, when I develop new silicon and chips I don’t break out Karnaugh maps and lay down circuit using a T square and stencils of gates. But I sure the hell know what I’m doing and expect the tools to do for me. \nTeaching fundamentals of reading, writing, arithmetic, essays, research are just that fundamental.", ">\n\nI’d argue that the vast majority don’t need anything beyond basic math anyways. \nGo ask the average adult if they know the quadratic equation and what it means and you’d probably be disappointed.", ">\n\nChatGPT is here to stay, you'd better advocate for teaching people how to make the most of it and use it wisely instead of pretending it doesn't exist.\nOne of my favourite teachers always told students to use the best tools there are.", ">\n\nI think it depends completely on the topic. In my field of study, it’s fairly easy to come up with term paper assignments that the bot would be useless for. \nLooking back at the paper I wrote last year, I don’t see how any current bot could have helped, as it isn’t able to read or summarize specific sources (yet?).\nAn example of the type of assignments we get is “Discuss the role of state capacity in x and x conflict in light of (specific research paper)‘s dimensions of state capacity - do your findings confirm the findings of (authors), why or why not?\nThis way of combining literature made it difficult even for me to be on top of it, as there were no sources that had attempted this exact combination - it has to be original. \nAlso, I find it’s the best way to learn, because you have to rely on your own judgement and there are no shortcuts, even asking the professor was unhelpful as he wasn’t too familiar with the details.", ">\n\nThis is not the best way.", ">\n\n\nThese homework rooms would have Internet connected computers for use but access to ChatGPT would be filtered and blocked.\n\nThis wouldn't be feasible, there's far too many roundabout ways to still access ChatGPT. Security measures like domain filtering are just unproductive games of whack-a-mole. \nEdit: removed all the other stuff I wrote, as those points have already been mentioned in previous top-level comments.", ">\n\nHomework shouldn’t be the go-to method of “education” to begin with. Imo Universities should focus on the integral part of education: the lectures. Tools like chatgpt can help student who are actually interested in a subject to learn more easily about it, but whether students actually learn anything or not from a class won’t change regardless of if work is authentic or copied from an AI\nSource: I’m a college student and have had experience in both supervised environments where we had to do work without the use of computers/phones and solely-online environments where many students cheated", ">\n\nWhile this could work, it is not necessarily the best way in terms of accessibility and of learning in general. \nFirst, students with ADHD and certain other conditions may not necessarily be the able to be productive at all times, or at the specific time they have to work on those computers, especially if those computers are not in an environment ideal to that specific person. It would also not be very feasible to give students enough time on these computers to complete the bigger assignments and essays. \nSecond, while ChatGPT is quite advanced, it simply works by looking at language patterns and often gets factual details incorrect. For example, with bigger coding problems, it tries to import modules that do not exist or call on functions that it has not defined. In literature, it cannot analyze texts on much more than a surface level. I will admit it can use secondary sources for textual analysis, however, it is unable to come up with a clear thesis on its own. \nAdditionally, take-home tests can be just as easily cheated on using a normal Google search, and usually test thinking skills rather than understanding and knowledge. \nFinally, essay-writing and other types of assignments are generally not ideal for learning as they are only one type of skill, and university professors are recognizing this. Not only do they not work for all learning styles, but they are only used so commonly because of tradition. University professors are structuring assignments around ways that are innovative enough that ChatGPT is unable to work on them. Along with requiring specific readings which the AI might not have access to, and citing of all sources (which has always been a requirement that the AI might trip up on), they are also going away from the traditional essay format into others. For example, I am studying literature, a relatively essay-heavy field, and in my past few courses I have been asked to analyze comics (which the AI cannot read), edit other people’s essays and articles (from past courses), create a mock syllabus or lesson plan with justifications for each reading, and create annotated bibliographies as a stepping stone to an essay. All of these not only require different skills and encourage different types of learning and research but are quite difficult for an AI to do. \nAll in all, while your suggestion is great, the very nature of the AI and the fact that it exists at all is perhaps a sign that the best course of action is to rework the way we think about evaluation. After all, if an evaluation is such that an AI can complete it without the ability to actually think (it works by using observed language patterns), then perhaps the evaluation is not ideal.", ">\n\nI bet teachers and people thought the same thing about calculators when they came out or 1990s internet. AI bots like chat GPT are just a tool.", ">\n\nAll this effectively does is train kids to accomplish goals of a type that do not exist in the real world in a situation they will never realistically encounter. A better goal is adjusting testing criteria to account for this.\nThere might be very specific sets of knowledge for which rote memorization is appropriate, and for those, the air gapped testing may be appropriate. But I believe those are the exception rather than the rule. By and large, teaching kids to effectively utilize the tools that will be available to them is what we should be doing.", ">\n\nImagine learning where the only books are hand written.\nThe printing press took out a huge amount of repetitive labor in the learning process.\nAI/ChatGPT stands a good chance of removing a huge amount knowledge labor which stands between an idea and the end product. Learning to use the AI to best effect the Idea->End Product Chain is more important than worrying about memorizing formulae we will likely never need to remember. \nThe effort to restrict ChatGPT is just education system worrying about their Cheese Being Moved.", ">\n\nThis just doesn't make any sense to me. You're arguing that we shouldn't allow students to use tools they would have at their disposal in a real working environment, and for what? Why wouldn't you want students to use every tool at their disposal? How exactly is handicapping them helping them to understand the coursework?\nA much better approach would be to fundamentally alter how we teach to better prepare them for the workforce. Encouraging collaboration and creative problem solving skills is much more practical and effective.", ">\n\nChatGPT may pass the Bar, but I highly doubt it will replace lawyers or other professionals. \nThe whole point of credentialing is to drive accountability. Anyone can study the law and cite precedent without a law degree. Actually representing a client in a court of law requires oversight and knowledge. ChatGPT isn't perfect - it will make mistakes from time to time. So who is responsible when it makes a mistake? When is a client (who is not familiar with the law) supposed to know that a mistake has been made on their behalf? For this reason, until ChatGPT is literally perfect you're always going to need a credentialed professional to review the output.\nFor the record, I think ChatGPT is wonderful. But it's a tool that people will use, not a full-fledged replacement for professionals. My employer (a Fortune 500 company) has already rejected its use for internal projects. IT has the website blocked.", ">\n\nThe kids that are educated without its use will fall behind in business when faced with kids that are using it to its fullest extent.\nYou've successfully made an argument for people to succeed in a test that is worthless in the real world. Its parameters don't match.", ">\n\nThe best way to educate children is to teach them skills and strategies that will actually serve them in the workplace of the future. \nChatGPT already has reached the point of replacing humans (See Buzzfeed news). If ChatGPT can take the test or do the homework then what value is that education going to be to these students? Especially older students will quickly see rote memorization as a waste of time and so yes they probably will cheat if they have the opportunity. Trying to force these things to be “learned” and prove that knowledge by brute force banning things is going to be a costly uphill battle.", ">\n\nWhat if we modify how essays are written by students, by asking them to include citations (which is something ChatGPT can’t do)?\nWe can’t stop new tools from making old methods obsolete. But we can focus on enhancing critical thinking of students in a stepwise manner. When a new tool is created, think about how you can adapt rather than resist it.", ">\n\nWhy not just train an ai to spot ai written papers?", ">\n\nWhat about gradually putting more emphasis on oral assignments?", ">\n\nEverything you said makes perfect sense...IF the goal was to teach children simply how to write the perfect standard essay. But that is a very limited way of viewing education and what its real goal is. The real goal of education is to teach children how to think. To come up with the right questions, not just the right answers. In a world where a \"good enough\" essay on literally anything can be conjured as if by magic by a machine, what's the actual value of that exercise now? For a very long time teachers have used the essay as a way to evaluate how a person thinks. Now that a machine can write it for you, we need new ways to evaluate how students think. That's the real task we are facing. Fuck the essay, just like we ditched the slide rule for calculators and later computers, etc. Tools change but the real game remains the same: Think for yourself!", ">\n\nI'd say the best way would be to accept the reality of changing technology and reevaluating the approach we have towards education as a whole.\nGranted, I'd say that's only one half of the picture: reassessing how we conceive if jobs and labour in the face of increasing automation goes along with that, and I think neither really works without the other.\nBottom line is that human labour is more and more obsolete as time goes on, so human jobs will be less and less in demand (I'd argue moving away from a capitalistic system is the right call, but even if you don't, automation is still an incentive).\nSince a large part of the incentive of our current education system is \"prepare you for a job\" I think the whole thing is going to fall short in light of these kinds of systems developing.\nTheres lots of people now who pursue knowledge as a project of passion, rather than a means to an end, and I think moving to a system that supports and encourages that kind of ambition is the way to go.", ">\n\nI disagree. We should learn to use the tools we have efficiently. Otherwise you are not learning for your career but for some professors ego", ">\n\nThat’s not “education in the era of ChatGPT.” That’s education in the era before ChatGPT while we figure out what the world with ChatGPT will look like so we have some idea of what to do with it.\nThat’s also not “educating,” that’s just “assessment.” Assessment is simply a measuring system for education. As long as you think of the acquisition of knowledge and skill as requiring knowledge regurgitation and skill performance in isolation and divorced from context/individualized, then you’re going to end up at necessitating a kind of geofenced, Luddite assessment model. The training itself predicates the assessment method. How we assess is defined by how we teach, and vice versa.\nThe best assessment method to gauge understanding is, and always has been, conversation.\nAll we need to do is pair assessment with regular conversation between qualified teacher and student to determine if personal comprehension is present. Not an interview, not an interrogation — conversation. Problem solving performance contexts are also great revealer of internalized knowledge and skill.\nChatGPT is a relative nonissue if your approach to assessment is at all human.\nIt’s only a problem when you’re trying to mechanize and dehumanized education. “Rigorous” does not mean “mechanical.” We are going to have to trust the professional, knowledge- and skill-assessing judgements of humans who already know and can do.\nEducation reverts to having more emphasis on apprenticeship and mentorship models, where the relationship itself is part of the learning process. \n(The “accountability!” cranks are gonna love that…)", ">\n\nI have a strong suspicion that discussions like this, while very interesting, will be obsolete long before any changes can actually be implemented in schools. In fact, I'm pretty sure schools will be gone entirely in the near future.\nAs of right now, you can be taught almost any subject by an exceptionally well-spoken, fast and infinitely patient teacher called GPT to a university level, if not higher. Try it right now - go ask GPT to explain the political situation that allowed Alexander the Great to conquer Persia, or ask it to explain the raytracing algorithm. If there's a part you don't understand, ask it to clarify. You'll be amazed how accessible it makes advanced topics.\nNow, how long before we have VR software with a realistic-looking AI teacher, with an AI-generated voice, who can do the same thing, but respond to students' voices and use body language and visual demonstrations? Five years?\nHow long after that before this tech is cheap, and of such high quality that sending your kids to school will be a worse education?\nNow in, say, 20 years, we could have an AI system that takes a DNA sample, analyses a students genotype to understand what subjects they will be naturally good at, what education approaches will be most successful, and continuously improves its model of the student's behavior by observing them. It crafts a decades-long education journey tailored to the individual, and accompanies them the entire way.\nTeachers, as far as they've existed so far, don't have a chance.", ">\n\nAre you trying to test someone or teach them?\nIf the latter, why do you care about cheating? This reminds me of the ol' teachers who used to restrict calculators because \"you won't always have a calculator with you.\"", ">\n\nYou forget that for 99% of homework students could just copy each other's work. Having the answers out in the world accessible is not a new problem. You just make homework a small part of the grades and you make sure students understand it's important to actually do it or they won't do well on the tests.", ">\n\nThere are so many people that can’t do the basic math examples you mentioned somewhere and they went to school at a time when there were no calculators.\nOn the other hand I was allowed to use calculators in school pretty much the moment I left elementary school and I am really quite good at math even without assistance.\nTool usage is one of humanities key features and trying to work against it instead of finding ways to incorporate new technology into school and life seems backwards.", ">\n\nIronically the teacher will have to use an AI to decipher the \"hand written\" assignments.", ">\n\nYou can't force people to learn.", ">\n\nWhat about teaching how to think rather than how to memorize? Just a thought 💭", ">\n\nThey need to get rid of homework, and have students do their work while they're at school. It's awful, they just pile it on, even if a class only has a little homework that day, there's like 6 or 7 classes so it's a nightmare for students. Seems like the only way to prevent cheating is have them do work in class, so I hope for the students sake, they do that.", ">\n\nI’ll throw my idea into the ring, though we’re still a few years off from this technology:\nWe should have students interact with AI tutors that can prompt them questions and point out details. Then they can collaborate on assignments, and the AI tutor can give feedback and suggest snippets. The AI can evaluate their work and their engagement with the material.", ">\n\nOne of Transformers main applications is in search. Ie you get a set of embeddings you can compare the pairwise distances between embedding and get a list of scores that tell you which embeddings are most similar to the input. \nEssentially tools like google are made to reduce the search space for a given query collect likely links and then rerank the most likely results. \nChatgpt basically does this in a more direct way of searching through a space of potential responses. Basically trained on a task to predict next token given the previous tokens or fill in a mask\nTransformers permeate everything students use from the recommendation algorithms on TikTok Facebook, YouTube to search systems in google. \nIn my opinion students should absolutely not be taught to fear these tools tho I do agree they be tested in constrained environments to challenge them. Current systems should not be used to learn unless you have a clear understanding and are willing to check every word and check your reasoning. Future systems will be much better though so this problem isn’t going anywhere. \nIf anything there should be a push to make these ideas more interpretable to a younger audience and give them the tools to navigate an increasingly complex market of ideas. They should be aware of the limitations and how when they use a piece of software their actions and the actions of those around them are influencing what they see next. \nIt should be used and taught with rigor. \nIt’s programming 2.0", ">\n\nDude no; \nChatGPT is the computer. \nDo you want to be the education system that banned the computer and then wondered why all the other education systems output modern tech workers, while your education system kept outputting chimney sweeps and car factory workers?", ">\n\nHW only exists to make students practice, and generally is worth less than 20% of the grade in a class. If a student chooses to use chat GPT to bypass it then that’s the student’s loss.\nUltimately exams are what schools use to evaluate a students knowledge and I don’t think that’s going to change anytime soon", ">\n\nThere are already programs that check if something was written by an AI or not. Also no student I know actually uses chatGPT for major assignments because chatGPT doesn’t know every text to ever be published so it doesn’t understand the context, and most of the time will just bullshit an answer that’s incorrect.\nEveryone I know that uses chatGPT for school do so for either for assignments so small and simple that it doesn’t make sense to quarantine, or they use it as a more advanced google that can answer questions more accurately than a search engine could, essentially just saving time.\n(most) students are using chatGPT largely as a productivity and time management tool rather than to cheat.", ">\n\nThis is like saying “in the age of calculators, the only way to ensure kids learn maths is to ban calculators in school”. If looked at correctly, chatgpt is an effect multiplier, learning just has to be rejigged to have kids learn to do things that they can’t simply ask chatgpt to do for them.", ">\n\nLess course work and more exams is the future in a world with chatGPT.", ">\n\nChatGPT will be a big no issue soon. I work in a research field and this was something we worried about last year. As of now there are multiple tools and even more being developed that catch the use of ChatGPT. There has been research published that list ChatGPT as a co-author, but for most research, and use by students, it will simply be forbidden and will easily be caught as well. The program does well but it has a particular style that can be caught. Again it will be a non-issue soon.", ">\n\nThis is like forbidding people to use a calculator because it can give you the result instant. A better way is to teach them how to use the calculator, because its here now and won't go away. Same with GPT. Children can learn way better/faster with ChatGPD if used correctly. Imaging having a private teacher for free which helps you learning every time of the day.", ">\n\nLet me ask you this. If ChatGPT could complete a students whole assignment, what would that student have learned from doing that assignment on their own that won’t simply be replaced with ChatGPT by a employer in the future?\nEven if ChatGPT doesn’t replace workers for a decade, why teach students skills that will inevitably be replaced and leave said students jobless in a decade?\nChatGPT won’t only be used in the workforce either. Linus Tech Tips has a video showing how ChatGPT can help people learn new skills and do troubleshooting on their own. If I remember correctly, he manages to completely build a pc by only strictly following what ChatGPT tells him to. It even managed to suggest the best parts for that computers specific use case. It was nowhere near perfect, but in the future it will get there.\nSince ChatGPT is such a useful tool in the workforce and at home, I think it’s crucial we teach students how to use it instead of banning them from it. Maybe students should be given a problem and tasked to use ChatGPT to find the solution or have students attempt to learn a new topic with ChatGPT. I’m not a teacher, I just thought of those examples of the top of my head. I’m sure qualified teachers could think of better assignments than me.\nI could see ChatGPT helping a mechanic diagnose an issue so the mechanic could spend more time fixing the problem rather than diagnosing and I can think of a few examples in other jobs as well where ChatGPT will help a worker be more efficient and save more time.\nI think, if anything, we’re setting students up for failure by not teaching them about these tools that will take over the workforce and help in everyday life.", ">\n\nYou’ll still have to pass a test. Relax.", ">\n\nIt “fairs” extremely well? Maybe some additional time spent observing ChatGPT could actually benefit some", ">\n\nThere’s just no way you can use ChatGPT to do all of your work for you and be successful at any moderately high level of academic pursuit. Not without learning the material yourself, and if you’ve done that, I don’t think it matters so much whether you used chatGPT and for what along the way.\nFrankly if you start our using chatGPT early in school, you won’t even be able to ask the right questions in the right way and include the necessary refinements to do more complex and demanding assignments down the road. \nAlso, tests are still a thing aren’t they? ChatGPT doesn’t help you perform in person in a monitored environment - not in a way that would allow you to skip learning the material. I don’t really get this aspect of your cmv. As long as tests don’t allow access to ChatGPT, anyone who didn’t learn the material is going to be exposed..", ">\n\nThere are already programs that detect ChatGPT writing.", ">\n\nThe children who want to cheat will always find a way to do so. It doesn’t matter how much you do to restrict it, it’ll just make them find new means of doing so. \nSource: I did GCSE’s in the UK, AP in the US. Trust, kids will cheat even in sterile environments. Especially if it’s a huge room and there are few moderators. A lot of us are scared of repercussions but those who aren’t won’t let anything stand in there way—region and proctoring be damned." ]
> CHATGPT is a tool, and in some applications (not all), it can help students do their homework. Consider the calculator. Do students not need to learn formulas and critical thinking just because they can punch numbers into calculators? No, math is still a skill that is valuable if for no other reason then because it trains your brain to solve problems. One of the things that surprises me is that ChatGPT can use words and explain things to students even when a teacher is not available or when there isn’t one. we should consider this an educational opportunity rather than a disadvantage. There are so many amazing things we humans can do when we simply have tools to help us. ChatGPT is no different.	[ "/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^\| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.", ">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?", ">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.", ">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?", ">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.", ">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?", ">\n\nYou mean a grade?", ">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication", ">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.", ">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)", ">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.", ">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.", ">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.", ">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.", ">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?", ">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.", ">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.", ">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.", ">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.", ">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.", ">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.", ">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.", ">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.", ">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.", ">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.", ">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.", ">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.", ">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.", ">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use", ">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.", ">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.", ">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.", ">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.", ">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.", ">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.", ">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.", ">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).", ">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.", ">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.", ">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.", ">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.", ">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.", ">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.", ">\n\n\nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \n\nWhy? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it. \n\nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \n\nWhy? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? \nLet's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project. \n\nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.\n\nTotally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator.", ">\n\nFor the most part, knowledge workers perform a given amount of work in a given amount of hours, and the number of them hired by a company is TotalHoursNeeded/NumHoursPerEmployee. E.g. if you have 100 manyears of work to get done in a typical year, you employ 100 people.\nChat GPT isn't going to \"replace\" people wholesale, because as you say someone still needs to supervise it. But it looks to be on track to increase the productivity of programmers (can write a first draft of code and finds many of the bugs instantly). \nSame for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones. \nSo now the TotalNeeded is decreased by some percentage, let's say 10% to start. Now you only need 90 human programmers to do that same work. With 25% efficiency gain, you need 75. With 50%, 50. Etc. \nOr take translation jobs. Today, an editor spends roughly 3 minutes per word editing machine translated text, and 1 minute per word editing human-translated text. As long as editors are more expensive per hour than first translation people, it still makes sense much of the time to hire translators, because the software isn't free. \nBut the graph of machine translation \"efficiency\" is trending towards taking the same amount of time to edit as a human translator. As soon as that's hit, there's literally no reason to hire human translators, only editors. \nAnd if the editing time goes down to 30 seconds/word because of further AI assistance to the editor, you only need half as many of those.", ">\n\nThere is currently two better solutions being worked on - one of which is already being used to some degree. \nThe first is ChatGPT developers themselves making moves to make AI written works to be identified by \"watermark\" or similar. I don't thi k this one has taken effect at all yet. \nAnother is by a separate dev team that allows teachers to use software to determine the amount of an essay, for example, that is written by AI what the likelihood of any one sentence or paragraph to have been written by AI. This allows the teachers to use discretion when determining if the student used the AI in a way that they find acceptable or not. This way instead kf running from the scary AI educators can actually utilize tyhe AI with students to help them develop their writing and other communications.", ">\n\nWhat about kids with transportation issues? When I was in school I knew kids that drove almost an hour each way to get there. I certainly couldn’t have asked my parents to drop everything to take me all the way to school so I could do my homework if I forgot. Bus schedules? Do you think schools want to waste more money by burning more gas for extra routes? I understand where you’re coming from, but for a fair amount of children—especially in poorer, more rural areas—that getting to school and back is such a delicate balancing act that such a thing would just punish them.", ">\n\nI've seen a few key things from academics testing out ChatGPT (I have not signed up myself):\n\nIt tends to produce confident, convincing nonsense. It doesn't actually understand what it's writing about, and I hear it shows.\nIt makes up citations. Real authors in the field, real journals... but made-up titles. Things like that, since, again, it doesn't actually understand citations.\n\nThis suggests that, for assignments requiring the demonstration of genuine, in-depth understanding, and not merely the ability to summarize facts, ChatGPT will fail.\nA similar example that you bring up in the comments is programming cheat sheets into calculators - but for well-designed engineering exams (including the licensure exams, at least in the US), cheat sheets are fine and often either allowed or provided. A well-designed exam tests the ability to apply principles, not knowledge of equations, so a cheat sheet is harmless, or even allows the exam to work better (since people aren't distracted with memorizing equations).", ">\n\nThere are three criticisms that I have of this approach. \n\n\nShould we not teach to the environment that we live in? Yes, education often imposes arbitrary constraints like time tests but for research and reports why not let people use and work around all resources? If you can work around chat gpt to work efficiently, then do it. You learn what it can and can’t do and how to use it effectively as a tool. \n\n\nCan chatGPT on it’s own actually write a good essay? From what I have seen it can pull together a few sources. It can generally write fluff based on other things that it has seen. But it struggles to write analysis. It can’t interrogate a source or make value judgements. It could be useful for doing some filler or providing ideas but if to do an actual report, I think it would be insufficient. \n\n\nAn assignment that can be done using chatgpt is probably boring. Here I am writing an essay for no reason other than I find it interesting to discuss this topic. Perhaps, we arent giving students interesting enough assignments or we are overloading them to the point that they don’t have the time to engage? If chatGPT turns out to be an issue maybe it’s more of an indictment of the structures and norms of education.", ">\n\n\n\nhomework in the form of essays, take home tests, coding assignments, would be completed on school grounds. \n\n\nCongratulations, you've invented the \"cram school\".\nI'd recommend reading through your post again and actually thinking about the things you've said. Because essentially, you're merely advocating for the wholesale elimination of homework and for education outside of that to remain totally unchanged. It's almost literally, \"Make the school day 30% longer\".\nMy solution to the \"problem\" of students potentially using ChatGPT to cheat on homework: I don't think you need a hilariously convoluted system of homework \"boiler rooms\" redolent of national security apparatus, that requires schools to adopt ruinously expensive and disruptive technological and administrative changes.\nIt would be sufficient if we institute a system whereby teachers are encouraged to, let's say... \"test\" their students, whether by regular written exams or by talking to them in what I'll call \"classes\", to ensure they understand the material they've been assigned to learn.\nThis method ensures that students cannot use AI homework bots to coast through classes (since they'll literally be found out the very next class), and has the added benefit of not adding three hours to every teacher's day.", ">\n\nWhat about pen and ink?", ">\n\narguably I can just copy a ChatGPT output by hand. So I think that is a first level measure, but not a complete solution.", ">\n\nIt's a better solution than prison just because the curriculum can't keep up with technology.\nWhen calculators arrived on everyone's phone and everyone's pocket did you advocate for the same solution? Unlikely, so why only now with this system?", ">\n\nWell I did and I was. When I was studying engineering in the 80s we routinely could not arrive at exams with a calculator. Even then calculators were programmable enough to allow students to write cheat sheets in calculator memory.\nIt forced us to memorize equations, principals of engineering, and independent thinking. I’m a better engineer because I did.", ">\n\nSo you're what, almost 60? And you think what's best for children is to be like you? Don't you think you may be a bit out of touch?\nAlso, your view was about K12 students, not engineering students.", ">\n\nNo. As I replied, leaning on tools as a crutch all your life will limit your ability and function as a human. For example, you could argue that basic math isn’t necessary. As matter of fact that was an argument years ago with the advent of calculators.\nHowever, humans should be able to exist and functions without a digital crutch. You should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator. You should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google. There are basic elements of duration necessary since we are all still wet grey matter.", ">\n\n\nYou should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator\n\nBut why?\n\nYou should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google\n\nAgain, why?\nWhere do you get your \"should\" from?\nI have basically all human knowledge in my hand, every equation or conversion I'll ever need day to day, even every language I'll likely ever encounter. Why shouldn't I leave my brain free to think about what it wants and to use my incredible resource as and when it's needed?\nDo you envision some Saw-like situation where you're locked to a wall and need to solve maths equations at pain of death?", ">\n\nThe less you use your brain the less likely your body is to maintain it. Our body functions through a use or lose it principle. Just look people who lose movement function/muscle just by being bedridden for a long time. Our brain is not different.\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.", ">\n\nIs wasting resources on process you can deletage outside not using your brain? You free up that space to put to what you decide is important.\n\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.\n\nThe weakest man with a gun can take out the strongest bodybuilder.", ">\n\nAnd if you decide Tik tok and Netflix are important? How do you think that will affect the cognitive ability of kids?\nI didn't mention strength nor physical strength. And even then the strongest man with a gun will probably take out the weakest man with a gun.(An actual fair comparison)", ">\n\nCouldn't chatgpt (or somesuch AI) be asked \"Hey - did you write this?\" and nip this sort of thing in the bud?", ">\n\nNo, Chat GPT doesn't remember everything it's said, the potential things it could say are huge and even if someone wrote something that Chat GPT might say, it could be a coincidence.", ">\n\nWell, strike that idea then.\nStill though - there must be some way to use AI to deal with this. \"set a thief to catch a thief\" and all that.", ">\n\nChat GPT (and most generative AIs) use GANs to generate content. \nIn laymen's terms (and extremely simplified as it's above my level of understanding) a GAN is 2 AI systems competing against each other, a creator AI that creates content and a checker AI that decides if the content was genuine or made by the other AI. \nSo any automated way to tell if it's AI generated can be built into the checker AI in future versions and the creator AI will learn to avoid whichever features the checker AI is spotting.", ">\n\nChatGPT is just another mechanism for reducing the need for labor, and it's not going away. \nChildren will need to be educated in both how to make effective use of it (for as long as it's not sufficient to completely eliminate mental labor), and also in the ethics of not using it. Always forcing them to write in airgapped places isn't going to do that, it just makes them resent it. \nAlso: essay writing on a scale needed to really learn long-form writing is not very amenable to doing in an airgapped classroom, because honestly we're not using dead-tree sources of information anymore already, so doing their research pretty much has to include doing it on line. \nBut really: laborious manual long-form essay writing is going to go the way of penmanship and looking things up in a library as an unneeded skill very quickly. We need children to adjust to that reality of the modern world rather than pretending it will go away. \nPeople are still needed (for now) to do the important part of writing essays without doing the laborious bit that ChatGPT automates anyway: deciding what to write, and editing it into a convincing and well-written form. \nForcing kids to spend a lot of time learning how to write the basic bulk part of essays is a lot like teaching them how to make buggy-whips in shop class: a pointless exercise. \nIt would be better to give them all prewritten ChatGPT essays and have them learn the limitations and capabilities.", ">\n\nIs ChatGPT really that much more effective than just grabbing things off Wikipedia? I was asking it things about elections and it was just Wikipedia from two years ago", ">\n\nThe answer is NEVER to limit technology. It’s to teach the new generation how to use that technology to achieve the same goal.\nIt’s pointless to ban computers and teach the memorization of dates in history class. It’s much more productive to teach online research skills so that if an individual needs to know the date of a particular moment in history, they can reliably Google it.\nChatGPT is the same. It renders writing essays as pointless, and it necessitates the teachers to adapt to new teaching styles, such as teaching the skills on how best to manipulate ChatGPT to return the information you need.", ">\n\nI was banned from using programming calculators when I studied engineering in the 80s during exams. It forced the students to all be on the same level playing field and forced us to actually know the equations, their applications, and the processes of whatever engineering course I was taking.\nIt made us better engineers.", ">\n\nHow does handicapping you make you a better engineer? If I put you and an engineer trained with technology in the same room together, who do you think would accomplish the task faster?", ">\n\nThe handicapped engineer, easily. The point of forcing students to actually learn the material is so that they understand how to reason about the underlying processes when they need to troubleshoot something going wrong, and understand the tradeoffs between approaches and how to select the best one for the task. \nOnce you understand things deeply you don't actually need training in doing things quickly because it's immediately intuitive how to apply a technological process to save time. The guy that leaned heavily on technology is basically fucked if he has to use a technique or software that he didn't specifically train on since he doesn't have a good foundation to abstract from. It would be more appropriate to call this person a technician.", ">\n\nThe purpose of calculators is to do the menial part of the work, not to solve whole processes. The engineer that learned with calculators likely knows how to select the right process to solve a problem, but uses the calculator to do the math faster and with fewer errors.", ">\n\nAt the college level, we’re not talking about tools to add and multiply. We’re talking about tools like Wolfram Alpha that do entire symbolic manipulations for you. If I took a calculus class and on all the assignments used Wolfram Alpha to find derivatives, do you think I would have learned anything?\nThat is what ChatGPT is doing for essays", ">\n\nThere are things called pencil and paper.", ">\n\nAs I said, this is the first line defense. However as I already commented to another user. I can simply hand copy ChatGPT output. Essentially not doing my own independent research, writing, coding, and studying.", ">\n\nWhy don't you consider that research? \nThe first source was the best. It's incredibly efficient research IMO.", ">\n\nThe idea of tool removal has always been flawed. From calculators to chat GPT and beyond. If your test is so flimsy that a simple tool invalidates it then the test is poorly built. Test shouldn't be simple busywork tasks, they should require thinking, problem solving, complex thought. If it's just a game of memorization that can be cheated by answers on a paper, you've built a bad test.\nover memorization (which is what our current school systems teach) is not only unhelpful, but also harmful. We live in an era of wikipedia being a reliable source, of vast access to tools both online and phsycial. We should be teaching kids they should do the work but with the help of those tools, not despite them.\nThe main issue with your argument is that based on what you've said, i can assume you think the current school system is a good one but so many studies have shown that at least here in the US, the school systems are some of the worst in the world. It's this memorize, ignore tools, singular focus mentality that plays such a big role.\nIf we were more creative with education, incorporating tool utilization into the learning process, we'd likely have a major improvement to our educational successes. I could go on about how the education system prefers certain kinds of students over others, and how many students are left behind simply because they don't learn like other kids and are therefore punished, but I won't. All I'll say is that more restrictions on how and what kids learn isn't going to help them learn more or better.\nand in 15 years when chat GPT is a part of daily life in every single company on the planet in some way or another (which I'm beyond certain it will be), kids who were taught how to properly utilize it will have just such a huge advantage in the workforce over those who weren't", ">\n\nRather than attempt to find ways to prevent new technology from interfering with existing pedagogy, shouldn't we review and revise pedagogy as new technology develops? \nIf a chat AI program can write these things, what is the point of having humans repeatedly do the same work? We don't expect people to use an abacus when doing math, or limit their research to what's in the library card catalogue, or require printed paper publications as essay resources; we adapted to the calculator, and to the internet and search engines. So too should we adapt to things like ChatGPT, not by trying to pretend it doesn't exist, but by finding ways to incorporate it into a more holistic approach to learning.\nRather than chain kids to an airgapped room on school grounds outside of school hours to do homework that's of dubious educational value in the first place, we should take this as an opportunity to refocus schooling on in-class engagement and direct instruction. ChatGPT and programs like it are showing us yet another thing we as humans can outsource to our technology, so why struggle to do things in a more difficult and inefficient way?", ">\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\nIn addition, AI is only as good as the data it is fed. You must still be able to do the work on your own to analyze when the AI is giving valid outputs (garbage in, garbage out). This is especially true, when AI runs the risks of being owned or operated by those with a specific agenda. Can you imagine the trouble that would result if people relied on AI to determine who to vote for, but someone was able to pay the operators to have the AI promote them?\nRelying on AI to do our work for us is a distillation of an appeal to authority fallacy on a large scale (if the AI says it, it must be true).", ">\n\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\n\nThis is something I worry about A LOT when it comes to AI. Our collective understanding of the subjects that we usually classify as \"the humanities\" is constantly evolving as we learn more, and especially as a more diverse set of people are allowed to study, research and put forth opinions and arguments.\nImagine if students were outsourcing all their history, psychology, sociology and philosophy homework to a chatbot with a 1950s understanding of those subjects.\nImagine doctors outsourcing psych patient diagnoses to a chatbot with the same understanding.\nOn an arguably less \"serious\" but still critically important moral and political topic, imagine if all/most videogame art was outsourced to an AI engine with a 1990s sensibility for female characters. Same for all kinds of representation and diversity.\nHow about politics and political science in general... ha!\nEtc, etc etc.\nIt is NOT the case that we already have discovered all the true answers to the big questions, and we can merely turn to a \"knowledge calculator\" like ChatGPT to spit out the truth.\nEven if AI can pretty accurately reflect the discourse of the day, as it is currently understood and accepted, our collective knowledge and culture will stagnate if we do not actively participate in developing it, and we will all pay the price for that.", ">\n\nThese are all moralistic arguments that ultimately don’t mean anything.", ">\n\nI would say they are more epistemic arguments, which do matter greatly in the context of education (which is what the op was referring to).", ">\n\nAre any of these things mentioned actually realistic concerns? Someone is going to train an AI bot to generate 90s female art characters with big tits?\nNo. Lol and even if someone did, who cares?", ">\n\nConsidering how many people believe obviously fake stories that have no supporting evidence (and in spite of contrary evidence), yes, I believe they are very real concerns.\nIf an AI says we should use Brawndo in farming because its got what plants crave (electrolytes), we should probably be able to justify it with reasoning beyond \"the AI says so.\"", ">\n\nWho is suggesting we do anything “just because an AI said so”? \nDo you read books and think everything in it is true “because the book says so”?", ">\n\nHow do you determine if what the book/ai said is false?\nYou would typically do it through a process of research and discovery.\nPeoples' ability to do research and discovery will be greatly diminished if we rely on AI to do those things for us (which is what the previous posters were suggesting).\nTherefore, reliance on AI will lead to us losing the ability to discern if the results of what the AI is saying is correct.", ">\n\nWhat? Lol that doesn’t make any sense at all. \nIt is not like if we use AI then all previous knowledge is simply forgotten or lost. It’s all still there.", ">\n\nForcing homework at school makes that \"not homework\", and this approach has never worked. You cant reject change, it never works. Every time there has been a game changing event, people adapted. Those who tried to reject change disappeared. Horse carriages disappeared from roads because something else replaced it. Some people supposedly rejected progress, but they are lying to themselves, they still use modern tech or services at some point.\nAnyway, the change is here, and it made essays irrelevant. Time to find another way to test people skills. \nGive it a little time though. ChatGPT costs a ginormous amount of money to run and will not stay free for long either.", ">\n\nIt's not just ChatGPT, the actual innovation is not the interface but lies in algorithms that can recreate natural language of similar quality with smaller data samples. There are also OpenSource datasets like ThePile, etc. so even if OpenAI moves to a paid model (and they will, quickly. You can already sign up to be first in line for the API), there will be other free providers.", ">\n\nHaving coded AIs, I disagree. ChatGPT is a regular trained AI. The novelty is the scale of the operation, and the fact there is a public API.\nNo one ever spent that much money on resources to run and train an AI publicly. I am pretty sure google has done something similar with user data sets to make their search engine and general ecosystem.\nI wish there was a way to have algorithms working with smaller data sets and produce similar results, but it kind of does not work that way.", ">\n\nThere are already tools to identify ChatGPT generated texts. Such tools will improve as another use of literally the same technology.\nJust as teachers submit essays for identifying plagiarism, teachers will submit essays for identifying AI-generated text. \nFurther, a focus could change from grading students on what they know to grading students' ability to ask meaningful, content-based questions about the subject. After all, knowing facts isn't particularly valuable as a skill. Integrating facts and discovering valuable questions is still something that remains a uniquely human skill. And is where people will continue to add value as AI becomes more advanced.", ">\n\nStudents have always been able to 'cheat' on work done outside the classroom, by copying or somehow getting others to do their work for them, even before the internet. Yes with more advanced modern technology it is easier but this has always been a concern. \nAs regular learning environments like supervised classrooms are already 'quarantined' in the way you descibe you are fundementally just suggesting an increase in learning hours as a supplement to homework. This has been suggested by many for various reasons but it would overall cuase more issues than it fixes. It increases work load on teachers and administrators, stretching already thin educational budgets, and forces increased mental strain on children. It would limit their ability to do other recreational and out of ciriculum activities. This would be disruptive and controlling when the quantity of teaching and learning time that children recive is already considered sufficiant for a good education.", ">\n\nHell the only thing stopping me from using ChatGPT regularly for my work now is that it's always at capacity.", ">\n\nApply tests that are hand written, doesnt matter how a person obtains the knowledge, actually learning the subject is most important thing.", ">\n\nThere is no amount of ChatGPT that could influence a good old oral exam where the teacher evaluates the understanding via a little chat.", ">\n\nSo tired of this view. We shouldn’t be fighting technology. Teach kids to use the resources they have to find answers. It’s such a waste of 12 years of school, teaching kids to memorize facts and follow rules. \nInstead, every test should be open book and reward the best answers. Ask the kids to show their work or explain their thought process so we reward understanding of a topic rather than memorization of steps or text.", ">\n\n20 years ago, there were already homework communities and learn groups. Even from the publishers of school books and with free access to tutors. Ok, they didnt do the final homework for me, but gave me a great starting point.\nBeing the kid who transcribes a wiki page was already stupid back then when others could call you out:\nBut I guess the actual problem is lack of digital literacy with teachers, they're always 5-10 years behind.", ">\n\nIf you are testing skills that can be done by free tools on the internet, then you are testing irrelevant skills.\nThe best way to educate kids is to test for skills they need, not skills they objectively don't.\nI was able to witness a couple of universities adapt to tests during quarantine, and follow reports on how the new methods would be used going forward.\nThe results where thus:\nMass offline testing is incredibly cost efficient (one examiner per ~300 students), but the tests results are a poor indicator of real world performance.\nOne to One testing is incredibly expensive, but can, when done right, test actual understanding and performance.\nBoth will be useful, of course. Mass testing is most useful when used in a way that students aren't incentivized to cheat, such as when framed as practice.", ">\n\nOne of the upsides of needing to prevent this kind of tech from cheating assignments is that teachers should focus on having students be able to do their homework at school. (As a former teacher, we were trying to do this already- no more than 15 min of homework per class). \nI dont think we need to do quite what you say. We just need to limit outside electronics and have in-person classrooms or computer labs with programs designed to be AI-proof. \nI have ALWAYS believed that cell phones/internet watches should be stored in school lockers (at most) and never allowed anywhere else on campus during the school day. If anyone needs to contact the students they contact the desk who relays their message/other need. Many schools already do this.", ">\n\n∆\nI agree with this. It would help.", ">\n\nThank you!", ">\n\nThat is utterly pointless.\nThere is no reason to limit the available tools.\nThis just reminds me of the entire \"you won't have a calculator wherever you go\" argument.\nSchool should instead put a focus on responsibly using available tools.", ">\n\nAnd if students choose to use them irresponsibly, what should schools do?\nAnd can you please define what constitutes responsible use? Because despite knowing about plagiarism, people still copy and paste from the internet. Perfect abstinence is easier than perfect moderation after all.", ">\n\nJust return to hand written essays and have more oral exams.", ">\n\n∆l\nActually of all comments having oral exams compliments my post and I agree with you. Enjoy the delta.", ">\n\nIn a Faraday cage.", ">\n\nIf children can just generate work with ChatGPT, it simply shows that children are not being taught anything valuable. (Once ChatGPT responses can be generated in almost unlimited amounts at very low cost, it necessarily means those responses are of low value)\nInstead shouldn't we be teaching children to provide more valuable outcomes that ChatGPT can't replicate?", ">\n\nBeing able to do on your own what ChatGPT does with access to an immense amount of data and processing power is valuable. The actual writing isn't valuable, obviously, but it would be silly to expect it to be. It's just a side effect of practice, you spend time making things of little or no value to build up the skills you'll need to make something that actually matters. That's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\nI think you'd be hard pressed to teach a class of children to outperform ChatGPT in writing without ever asking them to write something that could also be done via AI. What would that even look like?", ">\n\n\nThat's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\n\nIt is a problem. That is why I hated math class until 2nd year of university.", ">\n\nDid you start discovering novel math results in your second year of university, or was that just the point at which you first encountered problems you found interesting, despite the fact that someone else had already solved them before? Thinking back the class you didn't hate, do you think it should be removed if someone can construct an AI to give all the answers you gave?", ">\n\nThis is only a method for evaluating students, it doesn't do anything to educate them.\nChatgpt is potentially a great tool for education but trying to find complex ways around it for homework is pointless. When testing fact retention is required using school/university computers with no web browsing makes sense. For any other test or situation it's a tool that might be used.", ">\n\nI understand OPs concern. That said, I do not think you can create true quarantine for a multitude of reasons. \nThe biggest one is probably time. I worked through high school and university. Because I lived in the middle of nowhere it was about a 30 min drive to high school and then an hour to uni. Having to stay at these quarantine zones to complete assignments would have been hell on my schedule, car, and wallet. \nYou said it yourself, if someone is going to cheat, they will cheat. If I had to do the work in a quarantine zone, what exactly stops me from doing the actual work on my computer at home, printing it all out, and then just writing that into the computer at the quarantine zone? Unless you want to try having students write an entire essay in their hour long class? There has to be a point where they go home and then this falls apart.", ">\n\nThere are already lots of ways to cheat in homework and mostly our steps to deal with that amount to the honour system, and by university level, automated plagiarism detection (which can be quite easily avoided). The point you \"won't argue\" that people will cheat if given the opportunity is probably the actual crux of what's wrong with your suggestion and the part that needs a big [citation needed]. Concluding that the majority of people are fundamentally dishonest is a big assumption to handwave away. \nIf you want an education, cheating is stupid. Ultimately you might get a paper qualification out of it but you'll have actually learned nothing - you won't hold up long against someone who has done it properly when you actually have to apply the skills. Or if you do, then the assignments weren't that crucial to the learning in the first place.", ">\n\nMany of the things I learned in school were largely irrelevant. I couldn't use a calculator to do long division. After I passed those early elementary school years I never did long division again. I wouldn't even argue learning the long division algo is mandatory. It's nice to have learnt it I guess, but I spent way too many hours on it. I can see learning fundamentals of essay writing, etc, are great, but why can't we just evolve to learn more effective things in life? ChatGPT should be used as a tool, not viewed as a detriment.", ">\n\nIt'd suggest that the best way to educate them is to embrace ChatGBT and teach them to use it well. Your method is a bit like teaching kids to do math without calculators or accounting without excel or financial software. There is some value, but it runs out very quickly and you're at a social and competetive disadvantage for taking some archane principled approach to education that is more of a defense of \"how we used to do it\".\nI'm old enough to remember when using a word processor was sometime forbidden for reasons of fairness - that seems entirely disconnected now from doing good work and it's almost hard to envision the thought process of those who thought everything should be hand written for students. \nIsn't the kid who is amazing at utilizing tools like ChatGBT going to do much better in the world than the one who does not? Your idea of \"proper education\" would easily regress back to needing to do all subjects scrawled in dirt with sticks and grunted in non-standardized language.", ">\n\nOR, chatgpt will be a great boon to the entire education system:\nIncreased accessibility: ChatGPT and other AI-powered systems can provide education to individuals who otherwise would not have access to it, due to geographical, financial, or other barriers.\n\nPersonalized learning: ChatGPT can provide personalized education experiences based on each student's strengths, weaknesses, and learning style.\n\n24/7 availability: ChatGPT can operate 24/7, providing students with access to education at any time, anywhere, which can be especially beneficial for those with demanding schedules or for individuals in remote areas.\n\nScalability: ChatGPT can provide education to a large number of students simultaneously, which could help to address the shortage of teachers and resources in some areas.\n\nCost-effectiveness: ChatGPT can be a more cost-effective option for providing education compared to traditional methods, as it does not require physical classrooms or teachers.\n\nImproved student engagement: ChatGPT can provide interactive, engaging learning experiences that can hold students' attention and foster deeper learning.\n\n--Source: ChatGPT", ">\n\nThere a lots of places where texts and exams are “open book”. The questions have to be written differently, and the point is that you’re not testing someone’s ability to memorize, but rather their ability to understand. This is a more difficult test to write, so in theory AI could force education to improve since everyone would a virtual tutor with them at all times.", ">\n\nI'm a teacher and I've been thinking a lot about this the last couple months. Changes within the education system/curriculum/syllabus/retraining of teachers will take far too long to keep up with the ease of access to, and success of, chatgpt and AI in general. \nThe only solution moving forward both short and long term is to embrace it, there is no stopping it now anyway and if we don't all want to be out of a job in 5 years we need to - \n- demonstrate feasible/moral/ethical use of such tools\n- create more opportunities for collaborative learning/hands-on/problem solving tasks and ones that increase communication skills between peers. \nHow this applies to each individual, specific task will vary and must require a lot of creativity and trial and error, but I think relying too heavily on your department of education to handle this (or most 'boots on the ground' problems) will ultimately only degrade a students experience and ability for learning.", ">\n\nI'm with you on what you're trying to accomplish. I just don't know that it's the \"best\" way. \nFor instance, how is homework performed in school superior to trusting the kids to learn the material, which would then be tested by oral exam? And yes, I do believe that asking a student to verbally explain a topic is a really good way to gauge mastery.", ">\n\nThere is not a hope in hell that we'll go back to hand written stuff. That's not how technology works. As the music companies. There are better ways to show you know a subject, for sure, than the current out of-date ones. That's for sure. Have you ever taken an on-line exam?", ">\n\nI argue to let them use chatGPT as it will be their future. This is similar to my generations \"you'll never walk around with a calculator so learn math.\" The future children will grow into a society where work means utilizing AI tech to help them thrive. If chatGPT helps them write an essay, and it's good, it means they're using resources. I agree, however, that we should supplement this with actual reading and writing.", ">\n\nI would argue that most of time that ChatGPT and similar technologies is going to be an issue is in 8-12 grade and college.\nThis technology is not going away, and it's only going to improve. Personally I would treat it like calculators, audio books and spell check.\nTech kids how to use the technology properly. Sure it's somewhat handy to calculate numbers in your head, but having the ability to do math in your head does not give you much of an advantage in today's world and not being able to doesn't hurt you much. But it's still critical to know formulas and how to peace together algebraic statements and word problems. \nKnowing how to spell properly is less important than knowing proper word usage - most times you're writing something it can be spell-checked in real time. Sure it's \"terrible that today's kids...\" don't know how to spell... but it's not going to affect their career. \nEnter ChatGPT - same thing. Should I spend the time to write a white paper on the changing advertising landscape to alert my boss about the a potential seismic shift in advertising revenue, or should I ask ChatGPT to write it? As a user I have to understand its limits and potential copywrite issues, but even more importantly how to verify that what it writes is correct and targeting the right audience. Is data from before 2020 going to be recent and accurate enough for my thesis? How do I supplement the discussion with real-world data? \nThis is our new reality. We should be learning how to use the tools properly, not trying to figure out to lock it down (which frankly makes as much sense as locking down the use of calculators or spell check).", ">\n\nI think there are already apps in place that are able to detect AI generated text (Read this article).\nAlso, I think a better method would be to simply have a database of ChatGPT (could be encrypted) generated text and make it available to already existing software that is use to detect plagiarism (this is just an exemple amongst many)", ">\n\nFrankly I don’t think high schoolers and below should be given homework or tests at all. One learns magnitudes better through exploration as opposed to mindless repetition. Engage with these kids intellectually, make them free thinking Athenians, not bags of knowledge of which they have no idea how to use.\nDoes it not surprise anyone that we train people for over a decade in intellect yet hardly have any intellectuals?", ">\n\nI would argue that society would be better off spending resources on teaching children how to use this tool effectively. Knowing how to get the right answer is what matters in this world.", ">\n\nThen answer this: Well why learn math at all? Seriously.\nWhy learn he concept of subtraction let alone division? I could and society has argued that with the advent of digital calculators. \nYet we learn it. \nLater we use calculators to take the mundane and already known processes to the next level. We abstract away the mundane. \nAs a EE having worked and am working on products you may be using right now to read this, when I develop new silicon and chips I don’t break out Karnaugh maps and lay down circuit using a T square and stencils of gates. But I sure the hell know what I’m doing and expect the tools to do for me. \nTeaching fundamentals of reading, writing, arithmetic, essays, research are just that fundamental.", ">\n\nI’d argue that the vast majority don’t need anything beyond basic math anyways. \nGo ask the average adult if they know the quadratic equation and what it means and you’d probably be disappointed.", ">\n\nChatGPT is here to stay, you'd better advocate for teaching people how to make the most of it and use it wisely instead of pretending it doesn't exist.\nOne of my favourite teachers always told students to use the best tools there are.", ">\n\nI think it depends completely on the topic. In my field of study, it’s fairly easy to come up with term paper assignments that the bot would be useless for. \nLooking back at the paper I wrote last year, I don’t see how any current bot could have helped, as it isn’t able to read or summarize specific sources (yet?).\nAn example of the type of assignments we get is “Discuss the role of state capacity in x and x conflict in light of (specific research paper)‘s dimensions of state capacity - do your findings confirm the findings of (authors), why or why not?\nThis way of combining literature made it difficult even for me to be on top of it, as there were no sources that had attempted this exact combination - it has to be original. \nAlso, I find it’s the best way to learn, because you have to rely on your own judgement and there are no shortcuts, even asking the professor was unhelpful as he wasn’t too familiar with the details.", ">\n\nThis is not the best way.", ">\n\n\nThese homework rooms would have Internet connected computers for use but access to ChatGPT would be filtered and blocked.\n\nThis wouldn't be feasible, there's far too many roundabout ways to still access ChatGPT. Security measures like domain filtering are just unproductive games of whack-a-mole. \nEdit: removed all the other stuff I wrote, as those points have already been mentioned in previous top-level comments.", ">\n\nHomework shouldn’t be the go-to method of “education” to begin with. Imo Universities should focus on the integral part of education: the lectures. Tools like chatgpt can help student who are actually interested in a subject to learn more easily about it, but whether students actually learn anything or not from a class won’t change regardless of if work is authentic or copied from an AI\nSource: I’m a college student and have had experience in both supervised environments where we had to do work without the use of computers/phones and solely-online environments where many students cheated", ">\n\nWhile this could work, it is not necessarily the best way in terms of accessibility and of learning in general. \nFirst, students with ADHD and certain other conditions may not necessarily be the able to be productive at all times, or at the specific time they have to work on those computers, especially if those computers are not in an environment ideal to that specific person. It would also not be very feasible to give students enough time on these computers to complete the bigger assignments and essays. \nSecond, while ChatGPT is quite advanced, it simply works by looking at language patterns and often gets factual details incorrect. For example, with bigger coding problems, it tries to import modules that do not exist or call on functions that it has not defined. In literature, it cannot analyze texts on much more than a surface level. I will admit it can use secondary sources for textual analysis, however, it is unable to come up with a clear thesis on its own. \nAdditionally, take-home tests can be just as easily cheated on using a normal Google search, and usually test thinking skills rather than understanding and knowledge. \nFinally, essay-writing and other types of assignments are generally not ideal for learning as they are only one type of skill, and university professors are recognizing this. Not only do they not work for all learning styles, but they are only used so commonly because of tradition. University professors are structuring assignments around ways that are innovative enough that ChatGPT is unable to work on them. Along with requiring specific readings which the AI might not have access to, and citing of all sources (which has always been a requirement that the AI might trip up on), they are also going away from the traditional essay format into others. For example, I am studying literature, a relatively essay-heavy field, and in my past few courses I have been asked to analyze comics (which the AI cannot read), edit other people’s essays and articles (from past courses), create a mock syllabus or lesson plan with justifications for each reading, and create annotated bibliographies as a stepping stone to an essay. All of these not only require different skills and encourage different types of learning and research but are quite difficult for an AI to do. \nAll in all, while your suggestion is great, the very nature of the AI and the fact that it exists at all is perhaps a sign that the best course of action is to rework the way we think about evaluation. After all, if an evaluation is such that an AI can complete it without the ability to actually think (it works by using observed language patterns), then perhaps the evaluation is not ideal.", ">\n\nI bet teachers and people thought the same thing about calculators when they came out or 1990s internet. AI bots like chat GPT are just a tool.", ">\n\nAll this effectively does is train kids to accomplish goals of a type that do not exist in the real world in a situation they will never realistically encounter. A better goal is adjusting testing criteria to account for this.\nThere might be very specific sets of knowledge for which rote memorization is appropriate, and for those, the air gapped testing may be appropriate. But I believe those are the exception rather than the rule. By and large, teaching kids to effectively utilize the tools that will be available to them is what we should be doing.", ">\n\nImagine learning where the only books are hand written.\nThe printing press took out a huge amount of repetitive labor in the learning process.\nAI/ChatGPT stands a good chance of removing a huge amount knowledge labor which stands between an idea and the end product. Learning to use the AI to best effect the Idea->End Product Chain is more important than worrying about memorizing formulae we will likely never need to remember. \nThe effort to restrict ChatGPT is just education system worrying about their Cheese Being Moved.", ">\n\nThis just doesn't make any sense to me. You're arguing that we shouldn't allow students to use tools they would have at their disposal in a real working environment, and for what? Why wouldn't you want students to use every tool at their disposal? How exactly is handicapping them helping them to understand the coursework?\nA much better approach would be to fundamentally alter how we teach to better prepare them for the workforce. Encouraging collaboration and creative problem solving skills is much more practical and effective.", ">\n\nChatGPT may pass the Bar, but I highly doubt it will replace lawyers or other professionals. \nThe whole point of credentialing is to drive accountability. Anyone can study the law and cite precedent without a law degree. Actually representing a client in a court of law requires oversight and knowledge. ChatGPT isn't perfect - it will make mistakes from time to time. So who is responsible when it makes a mistake? When is a client (who is not familiar with the law) supposed to know that a mistake has been made on their behalf? For this reason, until ChatGPT is literally perfect you're always going to need a credentialed professional to review the output.\nFor the record, I think ChatGPT is wonderful. But it's a tool that people will use, not a full-fledged replacement for professionals. My employer (a Fortune 500 company) has already rejected its use for internal projects. IT has the website blocked.", ">\n\nThe kids that are educated without its use will fall behind in business when faced with kids that are using it to its fullest extent.\nYou've successfully made an argument for people to succeed in a test that is worthless in the real world. Its parameters don't match.", ">\n\nThe best way to educate children is to teach them skills and strategies that will actually serve them in the workplace of the future. \nChatGPT already has reached the point of replacing humans (See Buzzfeed news). If ChatGPT can take the test or do the homework then what value is that education going to be to these students? Especially older students will quickly see rote memorization as a waste of time and so yes they probably will cheat if they have the opportunity. Trying to force these things to be “learned” and prove that knowledge by brute force banning things is going to be a costly uphill battle.", ">\n\nWhat if we modify how essays are written by students, by asking them to include citations (which is something ChatGPT can’t do)?\nWe can’t stop new tools from making old methods obsolete. But we can focus on enhancing critical thinking of students in a stepwise manner. When a new tool is created, think about how you can adapt rather than resist it.", ">\n\nWhy not just train an ai to spot ai written papers?", ">\n\nWhat about gradually putting more emphasis on oral assignments?", ">\n\nEverything you said makes perfect sense...IF the goal was to teach children simply how to write the perfect standard essay. But that is a very limited way of viewing education and what its real goal is. The real goal of education is to teach children how to think. To come up with the right questions, not just the right answers. In a world where a \"good enough\" essay on literally anything can be conjured as if by magic by a machine, what's the actual value of that exercise now? For a very long time teachers have used the essay as a way to evaluate how a person thinks. Now that a machine can write it for you, we need new ways to evaluate how students think. That's the real task we are facing. Fuck the essay, just like we ditched the slide rule for calculators and later computers, etc. Tools change but the real game remains the same: Think for yourself!", ">\n\nI'd say the best way would be to accept the reality of changing technology and reevaluating the approach we have towards education as a whole.\nGranted, I'd say that's only one half of the picture: reassessing how we conceive if jobs and labour in the face of increasing automation goes along with that, and I think neither really works without the other.\nBottom line is that human labour is more and more obsolete as time goes on, so human jobs will be less and less in demand (I'd argue moving away from a capitalistic system is the right call, but even if you don't, automation is still an incentive).\nSince a large part of the incentive of our current education system is \"prepare you for a job\" I think the whole thing is going to fall short in light of these kinds of systems developing.\nTheres lots of people now who pursue knowledge as a project of passion, rather than a means to an end, and I think moving to a system that supports and encourages that kind of ambition is the way to go.", ">\n\nI disagree. We should learn to use the tools we have efficiently. Otherwise you are not learning for your career but for some professors ego", ">\n\nThat’s not “education in the era of ChatGPT.” That’s education in the era before ChatGPT while we figure out what the world with ChatGPT will look like so we have some idea of what to do with it.\nThat’s also not “educating,” that’s just “assessment.” Assessment is simply a measuring system for education. As long as you think of the acquisition of knowledge and skill as requiring knowledge regurgitation and skill performance in isolation and divorced from context/individualized, then you’re going to end up at necessitating a kind of geofenced, Luddite assessment model. The training itself predicates the assessment method. How we assess is defined by how we teach, and vice versa.\nThe best assessment method to gauge understanding is, and always has been, conversation.\nAll we need to do is pair assessment with regular conversation between qualified teacher and student to determine if personal comprehension is present. Not an interview, not an interrogation — conversation. Problem solving performance contexts are also great revealer of internalized knowledge and skill.\nChatGPT is a relative nonissue if your approach to assessment is at all human.\nIt’s only a problem when you’re trying to mechanize and dehumanized education. “Rigorous” does not mean “mechanical.” We are going to have to trust the professional, knowledge- and skill-assessing judgements of humans who already know and can do.\nEducation reverts to having more emphasis on apprenticeship and mentorship models, where the relationship itself is part of the learning process. \n(The “accountability!” cranks are gonna love that…)", ">\n\nI have a strong suspicion that discussions like this, while very interesting, will be obsolete long before any changes can actually be implemented in schools. In fact, I'm pretty sure schools will be gone entirely in the near future.\nAs of right now, you can be taught almost any subject by an exceptionally well-spoken, fast and infinitely patient teacher called GPT to a university level, if not higher. Try it right now - go ask GPT to explain the political situation that allowed Alexander the Great to conquer Persia, or ask it to explain the raytracing algorithm. If there's a part you don't understand, ask it to clarify. You'll be amazed how accessible it makes advanced topics.\nNow, how long before we have VR software with a realistic-looking AI teacher, with an AI-generated voice, who can do the same thing, but respond to students' voices and use body language and visual demonstrations? Five years?\nHow long after that before this tech is cheap, and of such high quality that sending your kids to school will be a worse education?\nNow in, say, 20 years, we could have an AI system that takes a DNA sample, analyses a students genotype to understand what subjects they will be naturally good at, what education approaches will be most successful, and continuously improves its model of the student's behavior by observing them. It crafts a decades-long education journey tailored to the individual, and accompanies them the entire way.\nTeachers, as far as they've existed so far, don't have a chance.", ">\n\nAre you trying to test someone or teach them?\nIf the latter, why do you care about cheating? This reminds me of the ol' teachers who used to restrict calculators because \"you won't always have a calculator with you.\"", ">\n\nYou forget that for 99% of homework students could just copy each other's work. Having the answers out in the world accessible is not a new problem. You just make homework a small part of the grades and you make sure students understand it's important to actually do it or they won't do well on the tests.", ">\n\nThere are so many people that can’t do the basic math examples you mentioned somewhere and they went to school at a time when there were no calculators.\nOn the other hand I was allowed to use calculators in school pretty much the moment I left elementary school and I am really quite good at math even without assistance.\nTool usage is one of humanities key features and trying to work against it instead of finding ways to incorporate new technology into school and life seems backwards.", ">\n\nIronically the teacher will have to use an AI to decipher the \"hand written\" assignments.", ">\n\nYou can't force people to learn.", ">\n\nWhat about teaching how to think rather than how to memorize? Just a thought 💭", ">\n\nThey need to get rid of homework, and have students do their work while they're at school. It's awful, they just pile it on, even if a class only has a little homework that day, there's like 6 or 7 classes so it's a nightmare for students. Seems like the only way to prevent cheating is have them do work in class, so I hope for the students sake, they do that.", ">\n\nI’ll throw my idea into the ring, though we’re still a few years off from this technology:\nWe should have students interact with AI tutors that can prompt them questions and point out details. Then they can collaborate on assignments, and the AI tutor can give feedback and suggest snippets. The AI can evaluate their work and their engagement with the material.", ">\n\nOne of Transformers main applications is in search. Ie you get a set of embeddings you can compare the pairwise distances between embedding and get a list of scores that tell you which embeddings are most similar to the input. \nEssentially tools like google are made to reduce the search space for a given query collect likely links and then rerank the most likely results. \nChatgpt basically does this in a more direct way of searching through a space of potential responses. Basically trained on a task to predict next token given the previous tokens or fill in a mask\nTransformers permeate everything students use from the recommendation algorithms on TikTok Facebook, YouTube to search systems in google. \nIn my opinion students should absolutely not be taught to fear these tools tho I do agree they be tested in constrained environments to challenge them. Current systems should not be used to learn unless you have a clear understanding and are willing to check every word and check your reasoning. Future systems will be much better though so this problem isn’t going anywhere. \nIf anything there should be a push to make these ideas more interpretable to a younger audience and give them the tools to navigate an increasingly complex market of ideas. They should be aware of the limitations and how when they use a piece of software their actions and the actions of those around them are influencing what they see next. \nIt should be used and taught with rigor. \nIt’s programming 2.0", ">\n\nDude no; \nChatGPT is the computer. \nDo you want to be the education system that banned the computer and then wondered why all the other education systems output modern tech workers, while your education system kept outputting chimney sweeps and car factory workers?", ">\n\nHW only exists to make students practice, and generally is worth less than 20% of the grade in a class. If a student chooses to use chat GPT to bypass it then that’s the student’s loss.\nUltimately exams are what schools use to evaluate a students knowledge and I don’t think that’s going to change anytime soon", ">\n\nThere are already programs that check if something was written by an AI or not. Also no student I know actually uses chatGPT for major assignments because chatGPT doesn’t know every text to ever be published so it doesn’t understand the context, and most of the time will just bullshit an answer that’s incorrect.\nEveryone I know that uses chatGPT for school do so for either for assignments so small and simple that it doesn’t make sense to quarantine, or they use it as a more advanced google that can answer questions more accurately than a search engine could, essentially just saving time.\n(most) students are using chatGPT largely as a productivity and time management tool rather than to cheat.", ">\n\nThis is like saying “in the age of calculators, the only way to ensure kids learn maths is to ban calculators in school”. If looked at correctly, chatgpt is an effect multiplier, learning just has to be rejigged to have kids learn to do things that they can’t simply ask chatgpt to do for them.", ">\n\nLess course work and more exams is the future in a world with chatGPT.", ">\n\nChatGPT will be a big no issue soon. I work in a research field and this was something we worried about last year. As of now there are multiple tools and even more being developed that catch the use of ChatGPT. There has been research published that list ChatGPT as a co-author, but for most research, and use by students, it will simply be forbidden and will easily be caught as well. The program does well but it has a particular style that can be caught. Again it will be a non-issue soon.", ">\n\nThis is like forbidding people to use a calculator because it can give you the result instant. A better way is to teach them how to use the calculator, because its here now and won't go away. Same with GPT. Children can learn way better/faster with ChatGPD if used correctly. Imaging having a private teacher for free which helps you learning every time of the day.", ">\n\nLet me ask you this. If ChatGPT could complete a students whole assignment, what would that student have learned from doing that assignment on their own that won’t simply be replaced with ChatGPT by a employer in the future?\nEven if ChatGPT doesn’t replace workers for a decade, why teach students skills that will inevitably be replaced and leave said students jobless in a decade?\nChatGPT won’t only be used in the workforce either. Linus Tech Tips has a video showing how ChatGPT can help people learn new skills and do troubleshooting on their own. If I remember correctly, he manages to completely build a pc by only strictly following what ChatGPT tells him to. It even managed to suggest the best parts for that computers specific use case. It was nowhere near perfect, but in the future it will get there.\nSince ChatGPT is such a useful tool in the workforce and at home, I think it’s crucial we teach students how to use it instead of banning them from it. Maybe students should be given a problem and tasked to use ChatGPT to find the solution or have students attempt to learn a new topic with ChatGPT. I’m not a teacher, I just thought of those examples of the top of my head. I’m sure qualified teachers could think of better assignments than me.\nI could see ChatGPT helping a mechanic diagnose an issue so the mechanic could spend more time fixing the problem rather than diagnosing and I can think of a few examples in other jobs as well where ChatGPT will help a worker be more efficient and save more time.\nI think, if anything, we’re setting students up for failure by not teaching them about these tools that will take over the workforce and help in everyday life.", ">\n\nYou’ll still have to pass a test. Relax.", ">\n\nIt “fairs” extremely well? Maybe some additional time spent observing ChatGPT could actually benefit some", ">\n\nThere’s just no way you can use ChatGPT to do all of your work for you and be successful at any moderately high level of academic pursuit. Not without learning the material yourself, and if you’ve done that, I don’t think it matters so much whether you used chatGPT and for what along the way.\nFrankly if you start our using chatGPT early in school, you won’t even be able to ask the right questions in the right way and include the necessary refinements to do more complex and demanding assignments down the road. \nAlso, tests are still a thing aren’t they? ChatGPT doesn’t help you perform in person in a monitored environment - not in a way that would allow you to skip learning the material. I don’t really get this aspect of your cmv. As long as tests don’t allow access to ChatGPT, anyone who didn’t learn the material is going to be exposed..", ">\n\nThere are already programs that detect ChatGPT writing.", ">\n\nThe children who want to cheat will always find a way to do so. It doesn’t matter how much you do to restrict it, it’ll just make them find new means of doing so. \nSource: I did GCSE’s in the UK, AP in the US. Trust, kids will cheat even in sterile environments. Especially if it’s a huge room and there are few moderators. A lot of us are scared of repercussions but those who aren’t won’t let anything stand in there way—region and proctoring be damned.", ">\n\nI require them to complete an outline first. Outline must be submitted to me before I take the essay. Google doc lets you see that they write it and when each sentence was written. It’s helped." ]
> You can’t force people to live in the past. Chat GPT is here to stay. Education now needs to focus on teaching people how to use AI, and how to develop a skill that can’t be replaced by AI.	[ "/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^\| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.", ">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?", ">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.", ">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?", ">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.", ">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?", ">\n\nYou mean a grade?", ">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication", ">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.", ">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)", ">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.", ">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.", ">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.", ">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.", ">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?", ">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.", ">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.", ">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.", ">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.", ">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.", ">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.", ">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.", ">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.", ">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.", ">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.", ">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.", ">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.", ">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.", ">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use", ">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.", ">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.", ">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.", ">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.", ">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.", ">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.", ">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.", ">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).", ">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.", ">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.", ">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.", ">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.", ">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.", ">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.", ">\n\n\nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \n\nWhy? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it. \n\nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \n\nWhy? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? \nLet's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project. \n\nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.\n\nTotally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator.", ">\n\nFor the most part, knowledge workers perform a given amount of work in a given amount of hours, and the number of them hired by a company is TotalHoursNeeded/NumHoursPerEmployee. E.g. if you have 100 manyears of work to get done in a typical year, you employ 100 people.\nChat GPT isn't going to \"replace\" people wholesale, because as you say someone still needs to supervise it. But it looks to be on track to increase the productivity of programmers (can write a first draft of code and finds many of the bugs instantly). \nSame for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones. \nSo now the TotalNeeded is decreased by some percentage, let's say 10% to start. Now you only need 90 human programmers to do that same work. With 25% efficiency gain, you need 75. With 50%, 50. Etc. \nOr take translation jobs. Today, an editor spends roughly 3 minutes per word editing machine translated text, and 1 minute per word editing human-translated text. As long as editors are more expensive per hour than first translation people, it still makes sense much of the time to hire translators, because the software isn't free. \nBut the graph of machine translation \"efficiency\" is trending towards taking the same amount of time to edit as a human translator. As soon as that's hit, there's literally no reason to hire human translators, only editors. \nAnd if the editing time goes down to 30 seconds/word because of further AI assistance to the editor, you only need half as many of those.", ">\n\nThere is currently two better solutions being worked on - one of which is already being used to some degree. \nThe first is ChatGPT developers themselves making moves to make AI written works to be identified by \"watermark\" or similar. I don't thi k this one has taken effect at all yet. \nAnother is by a separate dev team that allows teachers to use software to determine the amount of an essay, for example, that is written by AI what the likelihood of any one sentence or paragraph to have been written by AI. This allows the teachers to use discretion when determining if the student used the AI in a way that they find acceptable or not. This way instead kf running from the scary AI educators can actually utilize tyhe AI with students to help them develop their writing and other communications.", ">\n\nWhat about kids with transportation issues? When I was in school I knew kids that drove almost an hour each way to get there. I certainly couldn’t have asked my parents to drop everything to take me all the way to school so I could do my homework if I forgot. Bus schedules? Do you think schools want to waste more money by burning more gas for extra routes? I understand where you’re coming from, but for a fair amount of children—especially in poorer, more rural areas—that getting to school and back is such a delicate balancing act that such a thing would just punish them.", ">\n\nI've seen a few key things from academics testing out ChatGPT (I have not signed up myself):\n\nIt tends to produce confident, convincing nonsense. It doesn't actually understand what it's writing about, and I hear it shows.\nIt makes up citations. Real authors in the field, real journals... but made-up titles. Things like that, since, again, it doesn't actually understand citations.\n\nThis suggests that, for assignments requiring the demonstration of genuine, in-depth understanding, and not merely the ability to summarize facts, ChatGPT will fail.\nA similar example that you bring up in the comments is programming cheat sheets into calculators - but for well-designed engineering exams (including the licensure exams, at least in the US), cheat sheets are fine and often either allowed or provided. A well-designed exam tests the ability to apply principles, not knowledge of equations, so a cheat sheet is harmless, or even allows the exam to work better (since people aren't distracted with memorizing equations).", ">\n\nThere are three criticisms that I have of this approach. \n\n\nShould we not teach to the environment that we live in? Yes, education often imposes arbitrary constraints like time tests but for research and reports why not let people use and work around all resources? If you can work around chat gpt to work efficiently, then do it. You learn what it can and can’t do and how to use it effectively as a tool. \n\n\nCan chatGPT on it’s own actually write a good essay? From what I have seen it can pull together a few sources. It can generally write fluff based on other things that it has seen. But it struggles to write analysis. It can’t interrogate a source or make value judgements. It could be useful for doing some filler or providing ideas but if to do an actual report, I think it would be insufficient. \n\n\nAn assignment that can be done using chatgpt is probably boring. Here I am writing an essay for no reason other than I find it interesting to discuss this topic. Perhaps, we arent giving students interesting enough assignments or we are overloading them to the point that they don’t have the time to engage? If chatGPT turns out to be an issue maybe it’s more of an indictment of the structures and norms of education.", ">\n\n\n\nhomework in the form of essays, take home tests, coding assignments, would be completed on school grounds. \n\n\nCongratulations, you've invented the \"cram school\".\nI'd recommend reading through your post again and actually thinking about the things you've said. Because essentially, you're merely advocating for the wholesale elimination of homework and for education outside of that to remain totally unchanged. It's almost literally, \"Make the school day 30% longer\".\nMy solution to the \"problem\" of students potentially using ChatGPT to cheat on homework: I don't think you need a hilariously convoluted system of homework \"boiler rooms\" redolent of national security apparatus, that requires schools to adopt ruinously expensive and disruptive technological and administrative changes.\nIt would be sufficient if we institute a system whereby teachers are encouraged to, let's say... \"test\" their students, whether by regular written exams or by talking to them in what I'll call \"classes\", to ensure they understand the material they've been assigned to learn.\nThis method ensures that students cannot use AI homework bots to coast through classes (since they'll literally be found out the very next class), and has the added benefit of not adding three hours to every teacher's day.", ">\n\nWhat about pen and ink?", ">\n\narguably I can just copy a ChatGPT output by hand. So I think that is a first level measure, but not a complete solution.", ">\n\nIt's a better solution than prison just because the curriculum can't keep up with technology.\nWhen calculators arrived on everyone's phone and everyone's pocket did you advocate for the same solution? Unlikely, so why only now with this system?", ">\n\nWell I did and I was. When I was studying engineering in the 80s we routinely could not arrive at exams with a calculator. Even then calculators were programmable enough to allow students to write cheat sheets in calculator memory.\nIt forced us to memorize equations, principals of engineering, and independent thinking. I’m a better engineer because I did.", ">\n\nSo you're what, almost 60? And you think what's best for children is to be like you? Don't you think you may be a bit out of touch?\nAlso, your view was about K12 students, not engineering students.", ">\n\nNo. As I replied, leaning on tools as a crutch all your life will limit your ability and function as a human. For example, you could argue that basic math isn’t necessary. As matter of fact that was an argument years ago with the advent of calculators.\nHowever, humans should be able to exist and functions without a digital crutch. You should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator. You should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google. There are basic elements of duration necessary since we are all still wet grey matter.", ">\n\n\nYou should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator\n\nBut why?\n\nYou should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google\n\nAgain, why?\nWhere do you get your \"should\" from?\nI have basically all human knowledge in my hand, every equation or conversion I'll ever need day to day, even every language I'll likely ever encounter. Why shouldn't I leave my brain free to think about what it wants and to use my incredible resource as and when it's needed?\nDo you envision some Saw-like situation where you're locked to a wall and need to solve maths equations at pain of death?", ">\n\nThe less you use your brain the less likely your body is to maintain it. Our body functions through a use or lose it principle. Just look people who lose movement function/muscle just by being bedridden for a long time. Our brain is not different.\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.", ">\n\nIs wasting resources on process you can deletage outside not using your brain? You free up that space to put to what you decide is important.\n\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.\n\nThe weakest man with a gun can take out the strongest bodybuilder.", ">\n\nAnd if you decide Tik tok and Netflix are important? How do you think that will affect the cognitive ability of kids?\nI didn't mention strength nor physical strength. And even then the strongest man with a gun will probably take out the weakest man with a gun.(An actual fair comparison)", ">\n\nCouldn't chatgpt (or somesuch AI) be asked \"Hey - did you write this?\" and nip this sort of thing in the bud?", ">\n\nNo, Chat GPT doesn't remember everything it's said, the potential things it could say are huge and even if someone wrote something that Chat GPT might say, it could be a coincidence.", ">\n\nWell, strike that idea then.\nStill though - there must be some way to use AI to deal with this. \"set a thief to catch a thief\" and all that.", ">\n\nChat GPT (and most generative AIs) use GANs to generate content. \nIn laymen's terms (and extremely simplified as it's above my level of understanding) a GAN is 2 AI systems competing against each other, a creator AI that creates content and a checker AI that decides if the content was genuine or made by the other AI. \nSo any automated way to tell if it's AI generated can be built into the checker AI in future versions and the creator AI will learn to avoid whichever features the checker AI is spotting.", ">\n\nChatGPT is just another mechanism for reducing the need for labor, and it's not going away. \nChildren will need to be educated in both how to make effective use of it (for as long as it's not sufficient to completely eliminate mental labor), and also in the ethics of not using it. Always forcing them to write in airgapped places isn't going to do that, it just makes them resent it. \nAlso: essay writing on a scale needed to really learn long-form writing is not very amenable to doing in an airgapped classroom, because honestly we're not using dead-tree sources of information anymore already, so doing their research pretty much has to include doing it on line. \nBut really: laborious manual long-form essay writing is going to go the way of penmanship and looking things up in a library as an unneeded skill very quickly. We need children to adjust to that reality of the modern world rather than pretending it will go away. \nPeople are still needed (for now) to do the important part of writing essays without doing the laborious bit that ChatGPT automates anyway: deciding what to write, and editing it into a convincing and well-written form. \nForcing kids to spend a lot of time learning how to write the basic bulk part of essays is a lot like teaching them how to make buggy-whips in shop class: a pointless exercise. \nIt would be better to give them all prewritten ChatGPT essays and have them learn the limitations and capabilities.", ">\n\nIs ChatGPT really that much more effective than just grabbing things off Wikipedia? I was asking it things about elections and it was just Wikipedia from two years ago", ">\n\nThe answer is NEVER to limit technology. It’s to teach the new generation how to use that technology to achieve the same goal.\nIt’s pointless to ban computers and teach the memorization of dates in history class. It’s much more productive to teach online research skills so that if an individual needs to know the date of a particular moment in history, they can reliably Google it.\nChatGPT is the same. It renders writing essays as pointless, and it necessitates the teachers to adapt to new teaching styles, such as teaching the skills on how best to manipulate ChatGPT to return the information you need.", ">\n\nI was banned from using programming calculators when I studied engineering in the 80s during exams. It forced the students to all be on the same level playing field and forced us to actually know the equations, their applications, and the processes of whatever engineering course I was taking.\nIt made us better engineers.", ">\n\nHow does handicapping you make you a better engineer? If I put you and an engineer trained with technology in the same room together, who do you think would accomplish the task faster?", ">\n\nThe handicapped engineer, easily. The point of forcing students to actually learn the material is so that they understand how to reason about the underlying processes when they need to troubleshoot something going wrong, and understand the tradeoffs between approaches and how to select the best one for the task. \nOnce you understand things deeply you don't actually need training in doing things quickly because it's immediately intuitive how to apply a technological process to save time. The guy that leaned heavily on technology is basically fucked if he has to use a technique or software that he didn't specifically train on since he doesn't have a good foundation to abstract from. It would be more appropriate to call this person a technician.", ">\n\nThe purpose of calculators is to do the menial part of the work, not to solve whole processes. The engineer that learned with calculators likely knows how to select the right process to solve a problem, but uses the calculator to do the math faster and with fewer errors.", ">\n\nAt the college level, we’re not talking about tools to add and multiply. We’re talking about tools like Wolfram Alpha that do entire symbolic manipulations for you. If I took a calculus class and on all the assignments used Wolfram Alpha to find derivatives, do you think I would have learned anything?\nThat is what ChatGPT is doing for essays", ">\n\nThere are things called pencil and paper.", ">\n\nAs I said, this is the first line defense. However as I already commented to another user. I can simply hand copy ChatGPT output. Essentially not doing my own independent research, writing, coding, and studying.", ">\n\nWhy don't you consider that research? \nThe first source was the best. It's incredibly efficient research IMO.", ">\n\nThe idea of tool removal has always been flawed. From calculators to chat GPT and beyond. If your test is so flimsy that a simple tool invalidates it then the test is poorly built. Test shouldn't be simple busywork tasks, they should require thinking, problem solving, complex thought. If it's just a game of memorization that can be cheated by answers on a paper, you've built a bad test.\nover memorization (which is what our current school systems teach) is not only unhelpful, but also harmful. We live in an era of wikipedia being a reliable source, of vast access to tools both online and phsycial. We should be teaching kids they should do the work but with the help of those tools, not despite them.\nThe main issue with your argument is that based on what you've said, i can assume you think the current school system is a good one but so many studies have shown that at least here in the US, the school systems are some of the worst in the world. It's this memorize, ignore tools, singular focus mentality that plays such a big role.\nIf we were more creative with education, incorporating tool utilization into the learning process, we'd likely have a major improvement to our educational successes. I could go on about how the education system prefers certain kinds of students over others, and how many students are left behind simply because they don't learn like other kids and are therefore punished, but I won't. All I'll say is that more restrictions on how and what kids learn isn't going to help them learn more or better.\nand in 15 years when chat GPT is a part of daily life in every single company on the planet in some way or another (which I'm beyond certain it will be), kids who were taught how to properly utilize it will have just such a huge advantage in the workforce over those who weren't", ">\n\nRather than attempt to find ways to prevent new technology from interfering with existing pedagogy, shouldn't we review and revise pedagogy as new technology develops? \nIf a chat AI program can write these things, what is the point of having humans repeatedly do the same work? We don't expect people to use an abacus when doing math, or limit their research to what's in the library card catalogue, or require printed paper publications as essay resources; we adapted to the calculator, and to the internet and search engines. So too should we adapt to things like ChatGPT, not by trying to pretend it doesn't exist, but by finding ways to incorporate it into a more holistic approach to learning.\nRather than chain kids to an airgapped room on school grounds outside of school hours to do homework that's of dubious educational value in the first place, we should take this as an opportunity to refocus schooling on in-class engagement and direct instruction. ChatGPT and programs like it are showing us yet another thing we as humans can outsource to our technology, so why struggle to do things in a more difficult and inefficient way?", ">\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\nIn addition, AI is only as good as the data it is fed. You must still be able to do the work on your own to analyze when the AI is giving valid outputs (garbage in, garbage out). This is especially true, when AI runs the risks of being owned or operated by those with a specific agenda. Can you imagine the trouble that would result if people relied on AI to determine who to vote for, but someone was able to pay the operators to have the AI promote them?\nRelying on AI to do our work for us is a distillation of an appeal to authority fallacy on a large scale (if the AI says it, it must be true).", ">\n\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\n\nThis is something I worry about A LOT when it comes to AI. Our collective understanding of the subjects that we usually classify as \"the humanities\" is constantly evolving as we learn more, and especially as a more diverse set of people are allowed to study, research and put forth opinions and arguments.\nImagine if students were outsourcing all their history, psychology, sociology and philosophy homework to a chatbot with a 1950s understanding of those subjects.\nImagine doctors outsourcing psych patient diagnoses to a chatbot with the same understanding.\nOn an arguably less \"serious\" but still critically important moral and political topic, imagine if all/most videogame art was outsourced to an AI engine with a 1990s sensibility for female characters. Same for all kinds of representation and diversity.\nHow about politics and political science in general... ha!\nEtc, etc etc.\nIt is NOT the case that we already have discovered all the true answers to the big questions, and we can merely turn to a \"knowledge calculator\" like ChatGPT to spit out the truth.\nEven if AI can pretty accurately reflect the discourse of the day, as it is currently understood and accepted, our collective knowledge and culture will stagnate if we do not actively participate in developing it, and we will all pay the price for that.", ">\n\nThese are all moralistic arguments that ultimately don’t mean anything.", ">\n\nI would say they are more epistemic arguments, which do matter greatly in the context of education (which is what the op was referring to).", ">\n\nAre any of these things mentioned actually realistic concerns? Someone is going to train an AI bot to generate 90s female art characters with big tits?\nNo. Lol and even if someone did, who cares?", ">\n\nConsidering how many people believe obviously fake stories that have no supporting evidence (and in spite of contrary evidence), yes, I believe they are very real concerns.\nIf an AI says we should use Brawndo in farming because its got what plants crave (electrolytes), we should probably be able to justify it with reasoning beyond \"the AI says so.\"", ">\n\nWho is suggesting we do anything “just because an AI said so”? \nDo you read books and think everything in it is true “because the book says so”?", ">\n\nHow do you determine if what the book/ai said is false?\nYou would typically do it through a process of research and discovery.\nPeoples' ability to do research and discovery will be greatly diminished if we rely on AI to do those things for us (which is what the previous posters were suggesting).\nTherefore, reliance on AI will lead to us losing the ability to discern if the results of what the AI is saying is correct.", ">\n\nWhat? Lol that doesn’t make any sense at all. \nIt is not like if we use AI then all previous knowledge is simply forgotten or lost. It’s all still there.", ">\n\nForcing homework at school makes that \"not homework\", and this approach has never worked. You cant reject change, it never works. Every time there has been a game changing event, people adapted. Those who tried to reject change disappeared. Horse carriages disappeared from roads because something else replaced it. Some people supposedly rejected progress, but they are lying to themselves, they still use modern tech or services at some point.\nAnyway, the change is here, and it made essays irrelevant. Time to find another way to test people skills. \nGive it a little time though. ChatGPT costs a ginormous amount of money to run and will not stay free for long either.", ">\n\nIt's not just ChatGPT, the actual innovation is not the interface but lies in algorithms that can recreate natural language of similar quality with smaller data samples. There are also OpenSource datasets like ThePile, etc. so even if OpenAI moves to a paid model (and they will, quickly. You can already sign up to be first in line for the API), there will be other free providers.", ">\n\nHaving coded AIs, I disagree. ChatGPT is a regular trained AI. The novelty is the scale of the operation, and the fact there is a public API.\nNo one ever spent that much money on resources to run and train an AI publicly. I am pretty sure google has done something similar with user data sets to make their search engine and general ecosystem.\nI wish there was a way to have algorithms working with smaller data sets and produce similar results, but it kind of does not work that way.", ">\n\nThere are already tools to identify ChatGPT generated texts. Such tools will improve as another use of literally the same technology.\nJust as teachers submit essays for identifying plagiarism, teachers will submit essays for identifying AI-generated text. \nFurther, a focus could change from grading students on what they know to grading students' ability to ask meaningful, content-based questions about the subject. After all, knowing facts isn't particularly valuable as a skill. Integrating facts and discovering valuable questions is still something that remains a uniquely human skill. And is where people will continue to add value as AI becomes more advanced.", ">\n\nStudents have always been able to 'cheat' on work done outside the classroom, by copying or somehow getting others to do their work for them, even before the internet. Yes with more advanced modern technology it is easier but this has always been a concern. \nAs regular learning environments like supervised classrooms are already 'quarantined' in the way you descibe you are fundementally just suggesting an increase in learning hours as a supplement to homework. This has been suggested by many for various reasons but it would overall cuase more issues than it fixes. It increases work load on teachers and administrators, stretching already thin educational budgets, and forces increased mental strain on children. It would limit their ability to do other recreational and out of ciriculum activities. This would be disruptive and controlling when the quantity of teaching and learning time that children recive is already considered sufficiant for a good education.", ">\n\nHell the only thing stopping me from using ChatGPT regularly for my work now is that it's always at capacity.", ">\n\nApply tests that are hand written, doesnt matter how a person obtains the knowledge, actually learning the subject is most important thing.", ">\n\nThere is no amount of ChatGPT that could influence a good old oral exam where the teacher evaluates the understanding via a little chat.", ">\n\nSo tired of this view. We shouldn’t be fighting technology. Teach kids to use the resources they have to find answers. It’s such a waste of 12 years of school, teaching kids to memorize facts and follow rules. \nInstead, every test should be open book and reward the best answers. Ask the kids to show their work or explain their thought process so we reward understanding of a topic rather than memorization of steps or text.", ">\n\n20 years ago, there were already homework communities and learn groups. Even from the publishers of school books and with free access to tutors. Ok, they didnt do the final homework for me, but gave me a great starting point.\nBeing the kid who transcribes a wiki page was already stupid back then when others could call you out:\nBut I guess the actual problem is lack of digital literacy with teachers, they're always 5-10 years behind.", ">\n\nIf you are testing skills that can be done by free tools on the internet, then you are testing irrelevant skills.\nThe best way to educate kids is to test for skills they need, not skills they objectively don't.\nI was able to witness a couple of universities adapt to tests during quarantine, and follow reports on how the new methods would be used going forward.\nThe results where thus:\nMass offline testing is incredibly cost efficient (one examiner per ~300 students), but the tests results are a poor indicator of real world performance.\nOne to One testing is incredibly expensive, but can, when done right, test actual understanding and performance.\nBoth will be useful, of course. Mass testing is most useful when used in a way that students aren't incentivized to cheat, such as when framed as practice.", ">\n\nOne of the upsides of needing to prevent this kind of tech from cheating assignments is that teachers should focus on having students be able to do their homework at school. (As a former teacher, we were trying to do this already- no more than 15 min of homework per class). \nI dont think we need to do quite what you say. We just need to limit outside electronics and have in-person classrooms or computer labs with programs designed to be AI-proof. \nI have ALWAYS believed that cell phones/internet watches should be stored in school lockers (at most) and never allowed anywhere else on campus during the school day. If anyone needs to contact the students they contact the desk who relays their message/other need. Many schools already do this.", ">\n\n∆\nI agree with this. It would help.", ">\n\nThank you!", ">\n\nThat is utterly pointless.\nThere is no reason to limit the available tools.\nThis just reminds me of the entire \"you won't have a calculator wherever you go\" argument.\nSchool should instead put a focus on responsibly using available tools.", ">\n\nAnd if students choose to use them irresponsibly, what should schools do?\nAnd can you please define what constitutes responsible use? Because despite knowing about plagiarism, people still copy and paste from the internet. Perfect abstinence is easier than perfect moderation after all.", ">\n\nJust return to hand written essays and have more oral exams.", ">\n\n∆l\nActually of all comments having oral exams compliments my post and I agree with you. Enjoy the delta.", ">\n\nIn a Faraday cage.", ">\n\nIf children can just generate work with ChatGPT, it simply shows that children are not being taught anything valuable. (Once ChatGPT responses can be generated in almost unlimited amounts at very low cost, it necessarily means those responses are of low value)\nInstead shouldn't we be teaching children to provide more valuable outcomes that ChatGPT can't replicate?", ">\n\nBeing able to do on your own what ChatGPT does with access to an immense amount of data and processing power is valuable. The actual writing isn't valuable, obviously, but it would be silly to expect it to be. It's just a side effect of practice, you spend time making things of little or no value to build up the skills you'll need to make something that actually matters. That's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\nI think you'd be hard pressed to teach a class of children to outperform ChatGPT in writing without ever asking them to write something that could also be done via AI. What would that even look like?", ">\n\n\nThat's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\n\nIt is a problem. That is why I hated math class until 2nd year of university.", ">\n\nDid you start discovering novel math results in your second year of university, or was that just the point at which you first encountered problems you found interesting, despite the fact that someone else had already solved them before? Thinking back the class you didn't hate, do you think it should be removed if someone can construct an AI to give all the answers you gave?", ">\n\nThis is only a method for evaluating students, it doesn't do anything to educate them.\nChatgpt is potentially a great tool for education but trying to find complex ways around it for homework is pointless. When testing fact retention is required using school/university computers with no web browsing makes sense. For any other test or situation it's a tool that might be used.", ">\n\nI understand OPs concern. That said, I do not think you can create true quarantine for a multitude of reasons. \nThe biggest one is probably time. I worked through high school and university. Because I lived in the middle of nowhere it was about a 30 min drive to high school and then an hour to uni. Having to stay at these quarantine zones to complete assignments would have been hell on my schedule, car, and wallet. \nYou said it yourself, if someone is going to cheat, they will cheat. If I had to do the work in a quarantine zone, what exactly stops me from doing the actual work on my computer at home, printing it all out, and then just writing that into the computer at the quarantine zone? Unless you want to try having students write an entire essay in their hour long class? There has to be a point where they go home and then this falls apart.", ">\n\nThere are already lots of ways to cheat in homework and mostly our steps to deal with that amount to the honour system, and by university level, automated plagiarism detection (which can be quite easily avoided). The point you \"won't argue\" that people will cheat if given the opportunity is probably the actual crux of what's wrong with your suggestion and the part that needs a big [citation needed]. Concluding that the majority of people are fundamentally dishonest is a big assumption to handwave away. \nIf you want an education, cheating is stupid. Ultimately you might get a paper qualification out of it but you'll have actually learned nothing - you won't hold up long against someone who has done it properly when you actually have to apply the skills. Or if you do, then the assignments weren't that crucial to the learning in the first place.", ">\n\nMany of the things I learned in school were largely irrelevant. I couldn't use a calculator to do long division. After I passed those early elementary school years I never did long division again. I wouldn't even argue learning the long division algo is mandatory. It's nice to have learnt it I guess, but I spent way too many hours on it. I can see learning fundamentals of essay writing, etc, are great, but why can't we just evolve to learn more effective things in life? ChatGPT should be used as a tool, not viewed as a detriment.", ">\n\nIt'd suggest that the best way to educate them is to embrace ChatGBT and teach them to use it well. Your method is a bit like teaching kids to do math without calculators or accounting without excel or financial software. There is some value, but it runs out very quickly and you're at a social and competetive disadvantage for taking some archane principled approach to education that is more of a defense of \"how we used to do it\".\nI'm old enough to remember when using a word processor was sometime forbidden for reasons of fairness - that seems entirely disconnected now from doing good work and it's almost hard to envision the thought process of those who thought everything should be hand written for students. \nIsn't the kid who is amazing at utilizing tools like ChatGBT going to do much better in the world than the one who does not? Your idea of \"proper education\" would easily regress back to needing to do all subjects scrawled in dirt with sticks and grunted in non-standardized language.", ">\n\nOR, chatgpt will be a great boon to the entire education system:\nIncreased accessibility: ChatGPT and other AI-powered systems can provide education to individuals who otherwise would not have access to it, due to geographical, financial, or other barriers.\n\nPersonalized learning: ChatGPT can provide personalized education experiences based on each student's strengths, weaknesses, and learning style.\n\n24/7 availability: ChatGPT can operate 24/7, providing students with access to education at any time, anywhere, which can be especially beneficial for those with demanding schedules or for individuals in remote areas.\n\nScalability: ChatGPT can provide education to a large number of students simultaneously, which could help to address the shortage of teachers and resources in some areas.\n\nCost-effectiveness: ChatGPT can be a more cost-effective option for providing education compared to traditional methods, as it does not require physical classrooms or teachers.\n\nImproved student engagement: ChatGPT can provide interactive, engaging learning experiences that can hold students' attention and foster deeper learning.\n\n--Source: ChatGPT", ">\n\nThere a lots of places where texts and exams are “open book”. The questions have to be written differently, and the point is that you’re not testing someone’s ability to memorize, but rather their ability to understand. This is a more difficult test to write, so in theory AI could force education to improve since everyone would a virtual tutor with them at all times.", ">\n\nI'm a teacher and I've been thinking a lot about this the last couple months. Changes within the education system/curriculum/syllabus/retraining of teachers will take far too long to keep up with the ease of access to, and success of, chatgpt and AI in general. \nThe only solution moving forward both short and long term is to embrace it, there is no stopping it now anyway and if we don't all want to be out of a job in 5 years we need to - \n- demonstrate feasible/moral/ethical use of such tools\n- create more opportunities for collaborative learning/hands-on/problem solving tasks and ones that increase communication skills between peers. \nHow this applies to each individual, specific task will vary and must require a lot of creativity and trial and error, but I think relying too heavily on your department of education to handle this (or most 'boots on the ground' problems) will ultimately only degrade a students experience and ability for learning.", ">\n\nI'm with you on what you're trying to accomplish. I just don't know that it's the \"best\" way. \nFor instance, how is homework performed in school superior to trusting the kids to learn the material, which would then be tested by oral exam? And yes, I do believe that asking a student to verbally explain a topic is a really good way to gauge mastery.", ">\n\nThere is not a hope in hell that we'll go back to hand written stuff. That's not how technology works. As the music companies. There are better ways to show you know a subject, for sure, than the current out of-date ones. That's for sure. Have you ever taken an on-line exam?", ">\n\nI argue to let them use chatGPT as it will be their future. This is similar to my generations \"you'll never walk around with a calculator so learn math.\" The future children will grow into a society where work means utilizing AI tech to help them thrive. If chatGPT helps them write an essay, and it's good, it means they're using resources. I agree, however, that we should supplement this with actual reading and writing.", ">\n\nI would argue that most of time that ChatGPT and similar technologies is going to be an issue is in 8-12 grade and college.\nThis technology is not going away, and it's only going to improve. Personally I would treat it like calculators, audio books and spell check.\nTech kids how to use the technology properly. Sure it's somewhat handy to calculate numbers in your head, but having the ability to do math in your head does not give you much of an advantage in today's world and not being able to doesn't hurt you much. But it's still critical to know formulas and how to peace together algebraic statements and word problems. \nKnowing how to spell properly is less important than knowing proper word usage - most times you're writing something it can be spell-checked in real time. Sure it's \"terrible that today's kids...\" don't know how to spell... but it's not going to affect their career. \nEnter ChatGPT - same thing. Should I spend the time to write a white paper on the changing advertising landscape to alert my boss about the a potential seismic shift in advertising revenue, or should I ask ChatGPT to write it? As a user I have to understand its limits and potential copywrite issues, but even more importantly how to verify that what it writes is correct and targeting the right audience. Is data from before 2020 going to be recent and accurate enough for my thesis? How do I supplement the discussion with real-world data? \nThis is our new reality. We should be learning how to use the tools properly, not trying to figure out to lock it down (which frankly makes as much sense as locking down the use of calculators or spell check).", ">\n\nI think there are already apps in place that are able to detect AI generated text (Read this article).\nAlso, I think a better method would be to simply have a database of ChatGPT (could be encrypted) generated text and make it available to already existing software that is use to detect plagiarism (this is just an exemple amongst many)", ">\n\nFrankly I don’t think high schoolers and below should be given homework or tests at all. One learns magnitudes better through exploration as opposed to mindless repetition. Engage with these kids intellectually, make them free thinking Athenians, not bags of knowledge of which they have no idea how to use.\nDoes it not surprise anyone that we train people for over a decade in intellect yet hardly have any intellectuals?", ">\n\nI would argue that society would be better off spending resources on teaching children how to use this tool effectively. Knowing how to get the right answer is what matters in this world.", ">\n\nThen answer this: Well why learn math at all? Seriously.\nWhy learn he concept of subtraction let alone division? I could and society has argued that with the advent of digital calculators. \nYet we learn it. \nLater we use calculators to take the mundane and already known processes to the next level. We abstract away the mundane. \nAs a EE having worked and am working on products you may be using right now to read this, when I develop new silicon and chips I don’t break out Karnaugh maps and lay down circuit using a T square and stencils of gates. But I sure the hell know what I’m doing and expect the tools to do for me. \nTeaching fundamentals of reading, writing, arithmetic, essays, research are just that fundamental.", ">\n\nI’d argue that the vast majority don’t need anything beyond basic math anyways. \nGo ask the average adult if they know the quadratic equation and what it means and you’d probably be disappointed.", ">\n\nChatGPT is here to stay, you'd better advocate for teaching people how to make the most of it and use it wisely instead of pretending it doesn't exist.\nOne of my favourite teachers always told students to use the best tools there are.", ">\n\nI think it depends completely on the topic. In my field of study, it’s fairly easy to come up with term paper assignments that the bot would be useless for. \nLooking back at the paper I wrote last year, I don’t see how any current bot could have helped, as it isn’t able to read or summarize specific sources (yet?).\nAn example of the type of assignments we get is “Discuss the role of state capacity in x and x conflict in light of (specific research paper)‘s dimensions of state capacity - do your findings confirm the findings of (authors), why or why not?\nThis way of combining literature made it difficult even for me to be on top of it, as there were no sources that had attempted this exact combination - it has to be original. \nAlso, I find it’s the best way to learn, because you have to rely on your own judgement and there are no shortcuts, even asking the professor was unhelpful as he wasn’t too familiar with the details.", ">\n\nThis is not the best way.", ">\n\n\nThese homework rooms would have Internet connected computers for use but access to ChatGPT would be filtered and blocked.\n\nThis wouldn't be feasible, there's far too many roundabout ways to still access ChatGPT. Security measures like domain filtering are just unproductive games of whack-a-mole. \nEdit: removed all the other stuff I wrote, as those points have already been mentioned in previous top-level comments.", ">\n\nHomework shouldn’t be the go-to method of “education” to begin with. Imo Universities should focus on the integral part of education: the lectures. Tools like chatgpt can help student who are actually interested in a subject to learn more easily about it, but whether students actually learn anything or not from a class won’t change regardless of if work is authentic or copied from an AI\nSource: I’m a college student and have had experience in both supervised environments where we had to do work without the use of computers/phones and solely-online environments where many students cheated", ">\n\nWhile this could work, it is not necessarily the best way in terms of accessibility and of learning in general. \nFirst, students with ADHD and certain other conditions may not necessarily be the able to be productive at all times, or at the specific time they have to work on those computers, especially if those computers are not in an environment ideal to that specific person. It would also not be very feasible to give students enough time on these computers to complete the bigger assignments and essays. \nSecond, while ChatGPT is quite advanced, it simply works by looking at language patterns and often gets factual details incorrect. For example, with bigger coding problems, it tries to import modules that do not exist or call on functions that it has not defined. In literature, it cannot analyze texts on much more than a surface level. I will admit it can use secondary sources for textual analysis, however, it is unable to come up with a clear thesis on its own. \nAdditionally, take-home tests can be just as easily cheated on using a normal Google search, and usually test thinking skills rather than understanding and knowledge. \nFinally, essay-writing and other types of assignments are generally not ideal for learning as they are only one type of skill, and university professors are recognizing this. Not only do they not work for all learning styles, but they are only used so commonly because of tradition. University professors are structuring assignments around ways that are innovative enough that ChatGPT is unable to work on them. Along with requiring specific readings which the AI might not have access to, and citing of all sources (which has always been a requirement that the AI might trip up on), they are also going away from the traditional essay format into others. For example, I am studying literature, a relatively essay-heavy field, and in my past few courses I have been asked to analyze comics (which the AI cannot read), edit other people’s essays and articles (from past courses), create a mock syllabus or lesson plan with justifications for each reading, and create annotated bibliographies as a stepping stone to an essay. All of these not only require different skills and encourage different types of learning and research but are quite difficult for an AI to do. \nAll in all, while your suggestion is great, the very nature of the AI and the fact that it exists at all is perhaps a sign that the best course of action is to rework the way we think about evaluation. After all, if an evaluation is such that an AI can complete it without the ability to actually think (it works by using observed language patterns), then perhaps the evaluation is not ideal.", ">\n\nI bet teachers and people thought the same thing about calculators when they came out or 1990s internet. AI bots like chat GPT are just a tool.", ">\n\nAll this effectively does is train kids to accomplish goals of a type that do not exist in the real world in a situation they will never realistically encounter. A better goal is adjusting testing criteria to account for this.\nThere might be very specific sets of knowledge for which rote memorization is appropriate, and for those, the air gapped testing may be appropriate. But I believe those are the exception rather than the rule. By and large, teaching kids to effectively utilize the tools that will be available to them is what we should be doing.", ">\n\nImagine learning where the only books are hand written.\nThe printing press took out a huge amount of repetitive labor in the learning process.\nAI/ChatGPT stands a good chance of removing a huge amount knowledge labor which stands between an idea and the end product. Learning to use the AI to best effect the Idea->End Product Chain is more important than worrying about memorizing formulae we will likely never need to remember. \nThe effort to restrict ChatGPT is just education system worrying about their Cheese Being Moved.", ">\n\nThis just doesn't make any sense to me. You're arguing that we shouldn't allow students to use tools they would have at their disposal in a real working environment, and for what? Why wouldn't you want students to use every tool at their disposal? How exactly is handicapping them helping them to understand the coursework?\nA much better approach would be to fundamentally alter how we teach to better prepare them for the workforce. Encouraging collaboration and creative problem solving skills is much more practical and effective.", ">\n\nChatGPT may pass the Bar, but I highly doubt it will replace lawyers or other professionals. \nThe whole point of credentialing is to drive accountability. Anyone can study the law and cite precedent without a law degree. Actually representing a client in a court of law requires oversight and knowledge. ChatGPT isn't perfect - it will make mistakes from time to time. So who is responsible when it makes a mistake? When is a client (who is not familiar with the law) supposed to know that a mistake has been made on their behalf? For this reason, until ChatGPT is literally perfect you're always going to need a credentialed professional to review the output.\nFor the record, I think ChatGPT is wonderful. But it's a tool that people will use, not a full-fledged replacement for professionals. My employer (a Fortune 500 company) has already rejected its use for internal projects. IT has the website blocked.", ">\n\nThe kids that are educated without its use will fall behind in business when faced with kids that are using it to its fullest extent.\nYou've successfully made an argument for people to succeed in a test that is worthless in the real world. Its parameters don't match.", ">\n\nThe best way to educate children is to teach them skills and strategies that will actually serve them in the workplace of the future. \nChatGPT already has reached the point of replacing humans (See Buzzfeed news). If ChatGPT can take the test or do the homework then what value is that education going to be to these students? Especially older students will quickly see rote memorization as a waste of time and so yes they probably will cheat if they have the opportunity. Trying to force these things to be “learned” and prove that knowledge by brute force banning things is going to be a costly uphill battle.", ">\n\nWhat if we modify how essays are written by students, by asking them to include citations (which is something ChatGPT can’t do)?\nWe can’t stop new tools from making old methods obsolete. But we can focus on enhancing critical thinking of students in a stepwise manner. When a new tool is created, think about how you can adapt rather than resist it.", ">\n\nWhy not just train an ai to spot ai written papers?", ">\n\nWhat about gradually putting more emphasis on oral assignments?", ">\n\nEverything you said makes perfect sense...IF the goal was to teach children simply how to write the perfect standard essay. But that is a very limited way of viewing education and what its real goal is. The real goal of education is to teach children how to think. To come up with the right questions, not just the right answers. In a world where a \"good enough\" essay on literally anything can be conjured as if by magic by a machine, what's the actual value of that exercise now? For a very long time teachers have used the essay as a way to evaluate how a person thinks. Now that a machine can write it for you, we need new ways to evaluate how students think. That's the real task we are facing. Fuck the essay, just like we ditched the slide rule for calculators and later computers, etc. Tools change but the real game remains the same: Think for yourself!", ">\n\nI'd say the best way would be to accept the reality of changing technology and reevaluating the approach we have towards education as a whole.\nGranted, I'd say that's only one half of the picture: reassessing how we conceive if jobs and labour in the face of increasing automation goes along with that, and I think neither really works without the other.\nBottom line is that human labour is more and more obsolete as time goes on, so human jobs will be less and less in demand (I'd argue moving away from a capitalistic system is the right call, but even if you don't, automation is still an incentive).\nSince a large part of the incentive of our current education system is \"prepare you for a job\" I think the whole thing is going to fall short in light of these kinds of systems developing.\nTheres lots of people now who pursue knowledge as a project of passion, rather than a means to an end, and I think moving to a system that supports and encourages that kind of ambition is the way to go.", ">\n\nI disagree. We should learn to use the tools we have efficiently. Otherwise you are not learning for your career but for some professors ego", ">\n\nThat’s not “education in the era of ChatGPT.” That’s education in the era before ChatGPT while we figure out what the world with ChatGPT will look like so we have some idea of what to do with it.\nThat’s also not “educating,” that’s just “assessment.” Assessment is simply a measuring system for education. As long as you think of the acquisition of knowledge and skill as requiring knowledge regurgitation and skill performance in isolation and divorced from context/individualized, then you’re going to end up at necessitating a kind of geofenced, Luddite assessment model. The training itself predicates the assessment method. How we assess is defined by how we teach, and vice versa.\nThe best assessment method to gauge understanding is, and always has been, conversation.\nAll we need to do is pair assessment with regular conversation between qualified teacher and student to determine if personal comprehension is present. Not an interview, not an interrogation — conversation. Problem solving performance contexts are also great revealer of internalized knowledge and skill.\nChatGPT is a relative nonissue if your approach to assessment is at all human.\nIt’s only a problem when you’re trying to mechanize and dehumanized education. “Rigorous” does not mean “mechanical.” We are going to have to trust the professional, knowledge- and skill-assessing judgements of humans who already know and can do.\nEducation reverts to having more emphasis on apprenticeship and mentorship models, where the relationship itself is part of the learning process. \n(The “accountability!” cranks are gonna love that…)", ">\n\nI have a strong suspicion that discussions like this, while very interesting, will be obsolete long before any changes can actually be implemented in schools. In fact, I'm pretty sure schools will be gone entirely in the near future.\nAs of right now, you can be taught almost any subject by an exceptionally well-spoken, fast and infinitely patient teacher called GPT to a university level, if not higher. Try it right now - go ask GPT to explain the political situation that allowed Alexander the Great to conquer Persia, or ask it to explain the raytracing algorithm. If there's a part you don't understand, ask it to clarify. You'll be amazed how accessible it makes advanced topics.\nNow, how long before we have VR software with a realistic-looking AI teacher, with an AI-generated voice, who can do the same thing, but respond to students' voices and use body language and visual demonstrations? Five years?\nHow long after that before this tech is cheap, and of such high quality that sending your kids to school will be a worse education?\nNow in, say, 20 years, we could have an AI system that takes a DNA sample, analyses a students genotype to understand what subjects they will be naturally good at, what education approaches will be most successful, and continuously improves its model of the student's behavior by observing them. It crafts a decades-long education journey tailored to the individual, and accompanies them the entire way.\nTeachers, as far as they've existed so far, don't have a chance.", ">\n\nAre you trying to test someone or teach them?\nIf the latter, why do you care about cheating? This reminds me of the ol' teachers who used to restrict calculators because \"you won't always have a calculator with you.\"", ">\n\nYou forget that for 99% of homework students could just copy each other's work. Having the answers out in the world accessible is not a new problem. You just make homework a small part of the grades and you make sure students understand it's important to actually do it or they won't do well on the tests.", ">\n\nThere are so many people that can’t do the basic math examples you mentioned somewhere and they went to school at a time when there were no calculators.\nOn the other hand I was allowed to use calculators in school pretty much the moment I left elementary school and I am really quite good at math even without assistance.\nTool usage is one of humanities key features and trying to work against it instead of finding ways to incorporate new technology into school and life seems backwards.", ">\n\nIronically the teacher will have to use an AI to decipher the \"hand written\" assignments.", ">\n\nYou can't force people to learn.", ">\n\nWhat about teaching how to think rather than how to memorize? Just a thought 💭", ">\n\nThey need to get rid of homework, and have students do their work while they're at school. It's awful, they just pile it on, even if a class only has a little homework that day, there's like 6 or 7 classes so it's a nightmare for students. Seems like the only way to prevent cheating is have them do work in class, so I hope for the students sake, they do that.", ">\n\nI’ll throw my idea into the ring, though we’re still a few years off from this technology:\nWe should have students interact with AI tutors that can prompt them questions and point out details. Then they can collaborate on assignments, and the AI tutor can give feedback and suggest snippets. The AI can evaluate their work and their engagement with the material.", ">\n\nOne of Transformers main applications is in search. Ie you get a set of embeddings you can compare the pairwise distances between embedding and get a list of scores that tell you which embeddings are most similar to the input. \nEssentially tools like google are made to reduce the search space for a given query collect likely links and then rerank the most likely results. \nChatgpt basically does this in a more direct way of searching through a space of potential responses. Basically trained on a task to predict next token given the previous tokens or fill in a mask\nTransformers permeate everything students use from the recommendation algorithms on TikTok Facebook, YouTube to search systems in google. \nIn my opinion students should absolutely not be taught to fear these tools tho I do agree they be tested in constrained environments to challenge them. Current systems should not be used to learn unless you have a clear understanding and are willing to check every word and check your reasoning. Future systems will be much better though so this problem isn’t going anywhere. \nIf anything there should be a push to make these ideas more interpretable to a younger audience and give them the tools to navigate an increasingly complex market of ideas. They should be aware of the limitations and how when they use a piece of software their actions and the actions of those around them are influencing what they see next. \nIt should be used and taught with rigor. \nIt’s programming 2.0", ">\n\nDude no; \nChatGPT is the computer. \nDo you want to be the education system that banned the computer and then wondered why all the other education systems output modern tech workers, while your education system kept outputting chimney sweeps and car factory workers?", ">\n\nHW only exists to make students practice, and generally is worth less than 20% of the grade in a class. If a student chooses to use chat GPT to bypass it then that’s the student’s loss.\nUltimately exams are what schools use to evaluate a students knowledge and I don’t think that’s going to change anytime soon", ">\n\nThere are already programs that check if something was written by an AI or not. Also no student I know actually uses chatGPT for major assignments because chatGPT doesn’t know every text to ever be published so it doesn’t understand the context, and most of the time will just bullshit an answer that’s incorrect.\nEveryone I know that uses chatGPT for school do so for either for assignments so small and simple that it doesn’t make sense to quarantine, or they use it as a more advanced google that can answer questions more accurately than a search engine could, essentially just saving time.\n(most) students are using chatGPT largely as a productivity and time management tool rather than to cheat.", ">\n\nThis is like saying “in the age of calculators, the only way to ensure kids learn maths is to ban calculators in school”. If looked at correctly, chatgpt is an effect multiplier, learning just has to be rejigged to have kids learn to do things that they can’t simply ask chatgpt to do for them.", ">\n\nLess course work and more exams is the future in a world with chatGPT.", ">\n\nChatGPT will be a big no issue soon. I work in a research field and this was something we worried about last year. As of now there are multiple tools and even more being developed that catch the use of ChatGPT. There has been research published that list ChatGPT as a co-author, but for most research, and use by students, it will simply be forbidden and will easily be caught as well. The program does well but it has a particular style that can be caught. Again it will be a non-issue soon.", ">\n\nThis is like forbidding people to use a calculator because it can give you the result instant. A better way is to teach them how to use the calculator, because its here now and won't go away. Same with GPT. Children can learn way better/faster with ChatGPD if used correctly. Imaging having a private teacher for free which helps you learning every time of the day.", ">\n\nLet me ask you this. If ChatGPT could complete a students whole assignment, what would that student have learned from doing that assignment on their own that won’t simply be replaced with ChatGPT by a employer in the future?\nEven if ChatGPT doesn’t replace workers for a decade, why teach students skills that will inevitably be replaced and leave said students jobless in a decade?\nChatGPT won’t only be used in the workforce either. Linus Tech Tips has a video showing how ChatGPT can help people learn new skills and do troubleshooting on their own. If I remember correctly, he manages to completely build a pc by only strictly following what ChatGPT tells him to. It even managed to suggest the best parts for that computers specific use case. It was nowhere near perfect, but in the future it will get there.\nSince ChatGPT is such a useful tool in the workforce and at home, I think it’s crucial we teach students how to use it instead of banning them from it. Maybe students should be given a problem and tasked to use ChatGPT to find the solution or have students attempt to learn a new topic with ChatGPT. I’m not a teacher, I just thought of those examples of the top of my head. I’m sure qualified teachers could think of better assignments than me.\nI could see ChatGPT helping a mechanic diagnose an issue so the mechanic could spend more time fixing the problem rather than diagnosing and I can think of a few examples in other jobs as well where ChatGPT will help a worker be more efficient and save more time.\nI think, if anything, we’re setting students up for failure by not teaching them about these tools that will take over the workforce and help in everyday life.", ">\n\nYou’ll still have to pass a test. Relax.", ">\n\nIt “fairs” extremely well? Maybe some additional time spent observing ChatGPT could actually benefit some", ">\n\nThere’s just no way you can use ChatGPT to do all of your work for you and be successful at any moderately high level of academic pursuit. Not without learning the material yourself, and if you’ve done that, I don’t think it matters so much whether you used chatGPT and for what along the way.\nFrankly if you start our using chatGPT early in school, you won’t even be able to ask the right questions in the right way and include the necessary refinements to do more complex and demanding assignments down the road. \nAlso, tests are still a thing aren’t they? ChatGPT doesn’t help you perform in person in a monitored environment - not in a way that would allow you to skip learning the material. I don’t really get this aspect of your cmv. As long as tests don’t allow access to ChatGPT, anyone who didn’t learn the material is going to be exposed..", ">\n\nThere are already programs that detect ChatGPT writing.", ">\n\nThe children who want to cheat will always find a way to do so. It doesn’t matter how much you do to restrict it, it’ll just make them find new means of doing so. \nSource: I did GCSE’s in the UK, AP in the US. Trust, kids will cheat even in sterile environments. Especially if it’s a huge room and there are few moderators. A lot of us are scared of repercussions but those who aren’t won’t let anything stand in there way—region and proctoring be damned.", ">\n\nI require them to complete an outline first. Outline must be submitted to me before I take the essay. Google doc lets you see that they write it and when each sentence was written. It’s helped.", ">\n\nCHATGPT is a tool, and in some applications (not all), it can help students do their homework. Consider the calculator. Do students not need to learn formulas and critical thinking just because they can punch numbers into calculators?\nNo, math is still a skill that is valuable if for no other reason then because it trains your brain to solve problems.\nOne of the things that surprises me is that ChatGPT can use words and explain things to students even when a teacher is not available or when there isn’t one. we should consider this an educational opportunity rather than a disadvantage.\nThere are so many amazing things we humans can do when we simply have tools to help us. ChatGPT is no different." ]
> How about getting students engaged in what they’re learning and excited to learn. Find what they’re good at and double down on it. Don’t make school a fucking quarantine bubble. Socialize, allow them to teach and learn from each other. Replace the potential for cheating with collaboration assignments in person. “Children will cheat if given the opportunity” is such horse shit. If somebody doesn’t know or wasn’t taught something well then yea they’re gonna look to get it right so they can obtain approval. How about teaching them so they won’t cheat??	[ "/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^\| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.", ">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?", ">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.", ">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?", ">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.", ">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?", ">\n\nYou mean a grade?", ">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication", ">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.", ">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)", ">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.", ">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.", ">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.", ">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.", ">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?", ">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.", ">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.", ">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.", ">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.", ">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.", ">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.", ">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.", ">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.", ">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.", ">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.", ">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.", ">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.", ">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.", ">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use", ">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.", ">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.", ">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.", ">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.", ">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.", ">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.", ">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.", ">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).", ">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.", ">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.", ">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.", ">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.", ">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.", ">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.", ">\n\n\nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \n\nWhy? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it. \n\nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \n\nWhy? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? \nLet's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project. \n\nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.\n\nTotally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator.", ">\n\nFor the most part, knowledge workers perform a given amount of work in a given amount of hours, and the number of them hired by a company is TotalHoursNeeded/NumHoursPerEmployee. E.g. if you have 100 manyears of work to get done in a typical year, you employ 100 people.\nChat GPT isn't going to \"replace\" people wholesale, because as you say someone still needs to supervise it. But it looks to be on track to increase the productivity of programmers (can write a first draft of code and finds many of the bugs instantly). \nSame for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones. \nSo now the TotalNeeded is decreased by some percentage, let's say 10% to start. Now you only need 90 human programmers to do that same work. With 25% efficiency gain, you need 75. With 50%, 50. Etc. \nOr take translation jobs. Today, an editor spends roughly 3 minutes per word editing machine translated text, and 1 minute per word editing human-translated text. As long as editors are more expensive per hour than first translation people, it still makes sense much of the time to hire translators, because the software isn't free. \nBut the graph of machine translation \"efficiency\" is trending towards taking the same amount of time to edit as a human translator. As soon as that's hit, there's literally no reason to hire human translators, only editors. \nAnd if the editing time goes down to 30 seconds/word because of further AI assistance to the editor, you only need half as many of those.", ">\n\nThere is currently two better solutions being worked on - one of which is already being used to some degree. \nThe first is ChatGPT developers themselves making moves to make AI written works to be identified by \"watermark\" or similar. I don't thi k this one has taken effect at all yet. \nAnother is by a separate dev team that allows teachers to use software to determine the amount of an essay, for example, that is written by AI what the likelihood of any one sentence or paragraph to have been written by AI. This allows the teachers to use discretion when determining if the student used the AI in a way that they find acceptable or not. This way instead kf running from the scary AI educators can actually utilize tyhe AI with students to help them develop their writing and other communications.", ">\n\nWhat about kids with transportation issues? When I was in school I knew kids that drove almost an hour each way to get there. I certainly couldn’t have asked my parents to drop everything to take me all the way to school so I could do my homework if I forgot. Bus schedules? Do you think schools want to waste more money by burning more gas for extra routes? I understand where you’re coming from, but for a fair amount of children—especially in poorer, more rural areas—that getting to school and back is such a delicate balancing act that such a thing would just punish them.", ">\n\nI've seen a few key things from academics testing out ChatGPT (I have not signed up myself):\n\nIt tends to produce confident, convincing nonsense. It doesn't actually understand what it's writing about, and I hear it shows.\nIt makes up citations. Real authors in the field, real journals... but made-up titles. Things like that, since, again, it doesn't actually understand citations.\n\nThis suggests that, for assignments requiring the demonstration of genuine, in-depth understanding, and not merely the ability to summarize facts, ChatGPT will fail.\nA similar example that you bring up in the comments is programming cheat sheets into calculators - but for well-designed engineering exams (including the licensure exams, at least in the US), cheat sheets are fine and often either allowed or provided. A well-designed exam tests the ability to apply principles, not knowledge of equations, so a cheat sheet is harmless, or even allows the exam to work better (since people aren't distracted with memorizing equations).", ">\n\nThere are three criticisms that I have of this approach. \n\n\nShould we not teach to the environment that we live in? Yes, education often imposes arbitrary constraints like time tests but for research and reports why not let people use and work around all resources? If you can work around chat gpt to work efficiently, then do it. You learn what it can and can’t do and how to use it effectively as a tool. \n\n\nCan chatGPT on it’s own actually write a good essay? From what I have seen it can pull together a few sources. It can generally write fluff based on other things that it has seen. But it struggles to write analysis. It can’t interrogate a source or make value judgements. It could be useful for doing some filler or providing ideas but if to do an actual report, I think it would be insufficient. \n\n\nAn assignment that can be done using chatgpt is probably boring. Here I am writing an essay for no reason other than I find it interesting to discuss this topic. Perhaps, we arent giving students interesting enough assignments or we are overloading them to the point that they don’t have the time to engage? If chatGPT turns out to be an issue maybe it’s more of an indictment of the structures and norms of education.", ">\n\n\n\nhomework in the form of essays, take home tests, coding assignments, would be completed on school grounds. \n\n\nCongratulations, you've invented the \"cram school\".\nI'd recommend reading through your post again and actually thinking about the things you've said. Because essentially, you're merely advocating for the wholesale elimination of homework and for education outside of that to remain totally unchanged. It's almost literally, \"Make the school day 30% longer\".\nMy solution to the \"problem\" of students potentially using ChatGPT to cheat on homework: I don't think you need a hilariously convoluted system of homework \"boiler rooms\" redolent of national security apparatus, that requires schools to adopt ruinously expensive and disruptive technological and administrative changes.\nIt would be sufficient if we institute a system whereby teachers are encouraged to, let's say... \"test\" their students, whether by regular written exams or by talking to them in what I'll call \"classes\", to ensure they understand the material they've been assigned to learn.\nThis method ensures that students cannot use AI homework bots to coast through classes (since they'll literally be found out the very next class), and has the added benefit of not adding three hours to every teacher's day.", ">\n\nWhat about pen and ink?", ">\n\narguably I can just copy a ChatGPT output by hand. So I think that is a first level measure, but not a complete solution.", ">\n\nIt's a better solution than prison just because the curriculum can't keep up with technology.\nWhen calculators arrived on everyone's phone and everyone's pocket did you advocate for the same solution? Unlikely, so why only now with this system?", ">\n\nWell I did and I was. When I was studying engineering in the 80s we routinely could not arrive at exams with a calculator. Even then calculators were programmable enough to allow students to write cheat sheets in calculator memory.\nIt forced us to memorize equations, principals of engineering, and independent thinking. I’m a better engineer because I did.", ">\n\nSo you're what, almost 60? And you think what's best for children is to be like you? Don't you think you may be a bit out of touch?\nAlso, your view was about K12 students, not engineering students.", ">\n\nNo. As I replied, leaning on tools as a crutch all your life will limit your ability and function as a human. For example, you could argue that basic math isn’t necessary. As matter of fact that was an argument years ago with the advent of calculators.\nHowever, humans should be able to exist and functions without a digital crutch. You should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator. You should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google. There are basic elements of duration necessary since we are all still wet grey matter.", ">\n\n\nYou should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator\n\nBut why?\n\nYou should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google\n\nAgain, why?\nWhere do you get your \"should\" from?\nI have basically all human knowledge in my hand, every equation or conversion I'll ever need day to day, even every language I'll likely ever encounter. Why shouldn't I leave my brain free to think about what it wants and to use my incredible resource as and when it's needed?\nDo you envision some Saw-like situation where you're locked to a wall and need to solve maths equations at pain of death?", ">\n\nThe less you use your brain the less likely your body is to maintain it. Our body functions through a use or lose it principle. Just look people who lose movement function/muscle just by being bedridden for a long time. Our brain is not different.\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.", ">\n\nIs wasting resources on process you can deletage outside not using your brain? You free up that space to put to what you decide is important.\n\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.\n\nThe weakest man with a gun can take out the strongest bodybuilder.", ">\n\nAnd if you decide Tik tok and Netflix are important? How do you think that will affect the cognitive ability of kids?\nI didn't mention strength nor physical strength. And even then the strongest man with a gun will probably take out the weakest man with a gun.(An actual fair comparison)", ">\n\nCouldn't chatgpt (or somesuch AI) be asked \"Hey - did you write this?\" and nip this sort of thing in the bud?", ">\n\nNo, Chat GPT doesn't remember everything it's said, the potential things it could say are huge and even if someone wrote something that Chat GPT might say, it could be a coincidence.", ">\n\nWell, strike that idea then.\nStill though - there must be some way to use AI to deal with this. \"set a thief to catch a thief\" and all that.", ">\n\nChat GPT (and most generative AIs) use GANs to generate content. \nIn laymen's terms (and extremely simplified as it's above my level of understanding) a GAN is 2 AI systems competing against each other, a creator AI that creates content and a checker AI that decides if the content was genuine or made by the other AI. \nSo any automated way to tell if it's AI generated can be built into the checker AI in future versions and the creator AI will learn to avoid whichever features the checker AI is spotting.", ">\n\nChatGPT is just another mechanism for reducing the need for labor, and it's not going away. \nChildren will need to be educated in both how to make effective use of it (for as long as it's not sufficient to completely eliminate mental labor), and also in the ethics of not using it. Always forcing them to write in airgapped places isn't going to do that, it just makes them resent it. \nAlso: essay writing on a scale needed to really learn long-form writing is not very amenable to doing in an airgapped classroom, because honestly we're not using dead-tree sources of information anymore already, so doing their research pretty much has to include doing it on line. \nBut really: laborious manual long-form essay writing is going to go the way of penmanship and looking things up in a library as an unneeded skill very quickly. We need children to adjust to that reality of the modern world rather than pretending it will go away. \nPeople are still needed (for now) to do the important part of writing essays without doing the laborious bit that ChatGPT automates anyway: deciding what to write, and editing it into a convincing and well-written form. \nForcing kids to spend a lot of time learning how to write the basic bulk part of essays is a lot like teaching them how to make buggy-whips in shop class: a pointless exercise. \nIt would be better to give them all prewritten ChatGPT essays and have them learn the limitations and capabilities.", ">\n\nIs ChatGPT really that much more effective than just grabbing things off Wikipedia? I was asking it things about elections and it was just Wikipedia from two years ago", ">\n\nThe answer is NEVER to limit technology. It’s to teach the new generation how to use that technology to achieve the same goal.\nIt’s pointless to ban computers and teach the memorization of dates in history class. It’s much more productive to teach online research skills so that if an individual needs to know the date of a particular moment in history, they can reliably Google it.\nChatGPT is the same. It renders writing essays as pointless, and it necessitates the teachers to adapt to new teaching styles, such as teaching the skills on how best to manipulate ChatGPT to return the information you need.", ">\n\nI was banned from using programming calculators when I studied engineering in the 80s during exams. It forced the students to all be on the same level playing field and forced us to actually know the equations, their applications, and the processes of whatever engineering course I was taking.\nIt made us better engineers.", ">\n\nHow does handicapping you make you a better engineer? If I put you and an engineer trained with technology in the same room together, who do you think would accomplish the task faster?", ">\n\nThe handicapped engineer, easily. The point of forcing students to actually learn the material is so that they understand how to reason about the underlying processes when they need to troubleshoot something going wrong, and understand the tradeoffs between approaches and how to select the best one for the task. \nOnce you understand things deeply you don't actually need training in doing things quickly because it's immediately intuitive how to apply a technological process to save time. The guy that leaned heavily on technology is basically fucked if he has to use a technique or software that he didn't specifically train on since he doesn't have a good foundation to abstract from. It would be more appropriate to call this person a technician.", ">\n\nThe purpose of calculators is to do the menial part of the work, not to solve whole processes. The engineer that learned with calculators likely knows how to select the right process to solve a problem, but uses the calculator to do the math faster and with fewer errors.", ">\n\nAt the college level, we’re not talking about tools to add and multiply. We’re talking about tools like Wolfram Alpha that do entire symbolic manipulations for you. If I took a calculus class and on all the assignments used Wolfram Alpha to find derivatives, do you think I would have learned anything?\nThat is what ChatGPT is doing for essays", ">\n\nThere are things called pencil and paper.", ">\n\nAs I said, this is the first line defense. However as I already commented to another user. I can simply hand copy ChatGPT output. Essentially not doing my own independent research, writing, coding, and studying.", ">\n\nWhy don't you consider that research? \nThe first source was the best. It's incredibly efficient research IMO.", ">\n\nThe idea of tool removal has always been flawed. From calculators to chat GPT and beyond. If your test is so flimsy that a simple tool invalidates it then the test is poorly built. Test shouldn't be simple busywork tasks, they should require thinking, problem solving, complex thought. If it's just a game of memorization that can be cheated by answers on a paper, you've built a bad test.\nover memorization (which is what our current school systems teach) is not only unhelpful, but also harmful. We live in an era of wikipedia being a reliable source, of vast access to tools both online and phsycial. We should be teaching kids they should do the work but with the help of those tools, not despite them.\nThe main issue with your argument is that based on what you've said, i can assume you think the current school system is a good one but so many studies have shown that at least here in the US, the school systems are some of the worst in the world. It's this memorize, ignore tools, singular focus mentality that plays such a big role.\nIf we were more creative with education, incorporating tool utilization into the learning process, we'd likely have a major improvement to our educational successes. I could go on about how the education system prefers certain kinds of students over others, and how many students are left behind simply because they don't learn like other kids and are therefore punished, but I won't. All I'll say is that more restrictions on how and what kids learn isn't going to help them learn more or better.\nand in 15 years when chat GPT is a part of daily life in every single company on the planet in some way or another (which I'm beyond certain it will be), kids who were taught how to properly utilize it will have just such a huge advantage in the workforce over those who weren't", ">\n\nRather than attempt to find ways to prevent new technology from interfering with existing pedagogy, shouldn't we review and revise pedagogy as new technology develops? \nIf a chat AI program can write these things, what is the point of having humans repeatedly do the same work? We don't expect people to use an abacus when doing math, or limit their research to what's in the library card catalogue, or require printed paper publications as essay resources; we adapted to the calculator, and to the internet and search engines. So too should we adapt to things like ChatGPT, not by trying to pretend it doesn't exist, but by finding ways to incorporate it into a more holistic approach to learning.\nRather than chain kids to an airgapped room on school grounds outside of school hours to do homework that's of dubious educational value in the first place, we should take this as an opportunity to refocus schooling on in-class engagement and direct instruction. ChatGPT and programs like it are showing us yet another thing we as humans can outsource to our technology, so why struggle to do things in a more difficult and inefficient way?", ">\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\nIn addition, AI is only as good as the data it is fed. You must still be able to do the work on your own to analyze when the AI is giving valid outputs (garbage in, garbage out). This is especially true, when AI runs the risks of being owned or operated by those with a specific agenda. Can you imagine the trouble that would result if people relied on AI to determine who to vote for, but someone was able to pay the operators to have the AI promote them?\nRelying on AI to do our work for us is a distillation of an appeal to authority fallacy on a large scale (if the AI says it, it must be true).", ">\n\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\n\nThis is something I worry about A LOT when it comes to AI. Our collective understanding of the subjects that we usually classify as \"the humanities\" is constantly evolving as we learn more, and especially as a more diverse set of people are allowed to study, research and put forth opinions and arguments.\nImagine if students were outsourcing all their history, psychology, sociology and philosophy homework to a chatbot with a 1950s understanding of those subjects.\nImagine doctors outsourcing psych patient diagnoses to a chatbot with the same understanding.\nOn an arguably less \"serious\" but still critically important moral and political topic, imagine if all/most videogame art was outsourced to an AI engine with a 1990s sensibility for female characters. Same for all kinds of representation and diversity.\nHow about politics and political science in general... ha!\nEtc, etc etc.\nIt is NOT the case that we already have discovered all the true answers to the big questions, and we can merely turn to a \"knowledge calculator\" like ChatGPT to spit out the truth.\nEven if AI can pretty accurately reflect the discourse of the day, as it is currently understood and accepted, our collective knowledge and culture will stagnate if we do not actively participate in developing it, and we will all pay the price for that.", ">\n\nThese are all moralistic arguments that ultimately don’t mean anything.", ">\n\nI would say they are more epistemic arguments, which do matter greatly in the context of education (which is what the op was referring to).", ">\n\nAre any of these things mentioned actually realistic concerns? Someone is going to train an AI bot to generate 90s female art characters with big tits?\nNo. Lol and even if someone did, who cares?", ">\n\nConsidering how many people believe obviously fake stories that have no supporting evidence (and in spite of contrary evidence), yes, I believe they are very real concerns.\nIf an AI says we should use Brawndo in farming because its got what plants crave (electrolytes), we should probably be able to justify it with reasoning beyond \"the AI says so.\"", ">\n\nWho is suggesting we do anything “just because an AI said so”? \nDo you read books and think everything in it is true “because the book says so”?", ">\n\nHow do you determine if what the book/ai said is false?\nYou would typically do it through a process of research and discovery.\nPeoples' ability to do research and discovery will be greatly diminished if we rely on AI to do those things for us (which is what the previous posters were suggesting).\nTherefore, reliance on AI will lead to us losing the ability to discern if the results of what the AI is saying is correct.", ">\n\nWhat? Lol that doesn’t make any sense at all. \nIt is not like if we use AI then all previous knowledge is simply forgotten or lost. It’s all still there.", ">\n\nForcing homework at school makes that \"not homework\", and this approach has never worked. You cant reject change, it never works. Every time there has been a game changing event, people adapted. Those who tried to reject change disappeared. Horse carriages disappeared from roads because something else replaced it. Some people supposedly rejected progress, but they are lying to themselves, they still use modern tech or services at some point.\nAnyway, the change is here, and it made essays irrelevant. Time to find another way to test people skills. \nGive it a little time though. ChatGPT costs a ginormous amount of money to run and will not stay free for long either.", ">\n\nIt's not just ChatGPT, the actual innovation is not the interface but lies in algorithms that can recreate natural language of similar quality with smaller data samples. There are also OpenSource datasets like ThePile, etc. so even if OpenAI moves to a paid model (and they will, quickly. You can already sign up to be first in line for the API), there will be other free providers.", ">\n\nHaving coded AIs, I disagree. ChatGPT is a regular trained AI. The novelty is the scale of the operation, and the fact there is a public API.\nNo one ever spent that much money on resources to run and train an AI publicly. I am pretty sure google has done something similar with user data sets to make their search engine and general ecosystem.\nI wish there was a way to have algorithms working with smaller data sets and produce similar results, but it kind of does not work that way.", ">\n\nThere are already tools to identify ChatGPT generated texts. Such tools will improve as another use of literally the same technology.\nJust as teachers submit essays for identifying plagiarism, teachers will submit essays for identifying AI-generated text. \nFurther, a focus could change from grading students on what they know to grading students' ability to ask meaningful, content-based questions about the subject. After all, knowing facts isn't particularly valuable as a skill. Integrating facts and discovering valuable questions is still something that remains a uniquely human skill. And is where people will continue to add value as AI becomes more advanced.", ">\n\nStudents have always been able to 'cheat' on work done outside the classroom, by copying or somehow getting others to do their work for them, even before the internet. Yes with more advanced modern technology it is easier but this has always been a concern. \nAs regular learning environments like supervised classrooms are already 'quarantined' in the way you descibe you are fundementally just suggesting an increase in learning hours as a supplement to homework. This has been suggested by many for various reasons but it would overall cuase more issues than it fixes. It increases work load on teachers and administrators, stretching already thin educational budgets, and forces increased mental strain on children. It would limit their ability to do other recreational and out of ciriculum activities. This would be disruptive and controlling when the quantity of teaching and learning time that children recive is already considered sufficiant for a good education.", ">\n\nHell the only thing stopping me from using ChatGPT regularly for my work now is that it's always at capacity.", ">\n\nApply tests that are hand written, doesnt matter how a person obtains the knowledge, actually learning the subject is most important thing.", ">\n\nThere is no amount of ChatGPT that could influence a good old oral exam where the teacher evaluates the understanding via a little chat.", ">\n\nSo tired of this view. We shouldn’t be fighting technology. Teach kids to use the resources they have to find answers. It’s such a waste of 12 years of school, teaching kids to memorize facts and follow rules. \nInstead, every test should be open book and reward the best answers. Ask the kids to show their work or explain their thought process so we reward understanding of a topic rather than memorization of steps or text.", ">\n\n20 years ago, there were already homework communities and learn groups. Even from the publishers of school books and with free access to tutors. Ok, they didnt do the final homework for me, but gave me a great starting point.\nBeing the kid who transcribes a wiki page was already stupid back then when others could call you out:\nBut I guess the actual problem is lack of digital literacy with teachers, they're always 5-10 years behind.", ">\n\nIf you are testing skills that can be done by free tools on the internet, then you are testing irrelevant skills.\nThe best way to educate kids is to test for skills they need, not skills they objectively don't.\nI was able to witness a couple of universities adapt to tests during quarantine, and follow reports on how the new methods would be used going forward.\nThe results where thus:\nMass offline testing is incredibly cost efficient (one examiner per ~300 students), but the tests results are a poor indicator of real world performance.\nOne to One testing is incredibly expensive, but can, when done right, test actual understanding and performance.\nBoth will be useful, of course. Mass testing is most useful when used in a way that students aren't incentivized to cheat, such as when framed as practice.", ">\n\nOne of the upsides of needing to prevent this kind of tech from cheating assignments is that teachers should focus on having students be able to do their homework at school. (As a former teacher, we were trying to do this already- no more than 15 min of homework per class). \nI dont think we need to do quite what you say. We just need to limit outside electronics and have in-person classrooms or computer labs with programs designed to be AI-proof. \nI have ALWAYS believed that cell phones/internet watches should be stored in school lockers (at most) and never allowed anywhere else on campus during the school day. If anyone needs to contact the students they contact the desk who relays their message/other need. Many schools already do this.", ">\n\n∆\nI agree with this. It would help.", ">\n\nThank you!", ">\n\nThat is utterly pointless.\nThere is no reason to limit the available tools.\nThis just reminds me of the entire \"you won't have a calculator wherever you go\" argument.\nSchool should instead put a focus on responsibly using available tools.", ">\n\nAnd if students choose to use them irresponsibly, what should schools do?\nAnd can you please define what constitutes responsible use? Because despite knowing about plagiarism, people still copy and paste from the internet. Perfect abstinence is easier than perfect moderation after all.", ">\n\nJust return to hand written essays and have more oral exams.", ">\n\n∆l\nActually of all comments having oral exams compliments my post and I agree with you. Enjoy the delta.", ">\n\nIn a Faraday cage.", ">\n\nIf children can just generate work with ChatGPT, it simply shows that children are not being taught anything valuable. (Once ChatGPT responses can be generated in almost unlimited amounts at very low cost, it necessarily means those responses are of low value)\nInstead shouldn't we be teaching children to provide more valuable outcomes that ChatGPT can't replicate?", ">\n\nBeing able to do on your own what ChatGPT does with access to an immense amount of data and processing power is valuable. The actual writing isn't valuable, obviously, but it would be silly to expect it to be. It's just a side effect of practice, you spend time making things of little or no value to build up the skills you'll need to make something that actually matters. That's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\nI think you'd be hard pressed to teach a class of children to outperform ChatGPT in writing without ever asking them to write something that could also be done via AI. What would that even look like?", ">\n\n\nThat's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\n\nIt is a problem. That is why I hated math class until 2nd year of university.", ">\n\nDid you start discovering novel math results in your second year of university, or was that just the point at which you first encountered problems you found interesting, despite the fact that someone else had already solved them before? Thinking back the class you didn't hate, do you think it should be removed if someone can construct an AI to give all the answers you gave?", ">\n\nThis is only a method for evaluating students, it doesn't do anything to educate them.\nChatgpt is potentially a great tool for education but trying to find complex ways around it for homework is pointless. When testing fact retention is required using school/university computers with no web browsing makes sense. For any other test or situation it's a tool that might be used.", ">\n\nI understand OPs concern. That said, I do not think you can create true quarantine for a multitude of reasons. \nThe biggest one is probably time. I worked through high school and university. Because I lived in the middle of nowhere it was about a 30 min drive to high school and then an hour to uni. Having to stay at these quarantine zones to complete assignments would have been hell on my schedule, car, and wallet. \nYou said it yourself, if someone is going to cheat, they will cheat. If I had to do the work in a quarantine zone, what exactly stops me from doing the actual work on my computer at home, printing it all out, and then just writing that into the computer at the quarantine zone? Unless you want to try having students write an entire essay in their hour long class? There has to be a point where they go home and then this falls apart.", ">\n\nThere are already lots of ways to cheat in homework and mostly our steps to deal with that amount to the honour system, and by university level, automated plagiarism detection (which can be quite easily avoided). The point you \"won't argue\" that people will cheat if given the opportunity is probably the actual crux of what's wrong with your suggestion and the part that needs a big [citation needed]. Concluding that the majority of people are fundamentally dishonest is a big assumption to handwave away. \nIf you want an education, cheating is stupid. Ultimately you might get a paper qualification out of it but you'll have actually learned nothing - you won't hold up long against someone who has done it properly when you actually have to apply the skills. Or if you do, then the assignments weren't that crucial to the learning in the first place.", ">\n\nMany of the things I learned in school were largely irrelevant. I couldn't use a calculator to do long division. After I passed those early elementary school years I never did long division again. I wouldn't even argue learning the long division algo is mandatory. It's nice to have learnt it I guess, but I spent way too many hours on it. I can see learning fundamentals of essay writing, etc, are great, but why can't we just evolve to learn more effective things in life? ChatGPT should be used as a tool, not viewed as a detriment.", ">\n\nIt'd suggest that the best way to educate them is to embrace ChatGBT and teach them to use it well. Your method is a bit like teaching kids to do math without calculators or accounting without excel or financial software. There is some value, but it runs out very quickly and you're at a social and competetive disadvantage for taking some archane principled approach to education that is more of a defense of \"how we used to do it\".\nI'm old enough to remember when using a word processor was sometime forbidden for reasons of fairness - that seems entirely disconnected now from doing good work and it's almost hard to envision the thought process of those who thought everything should be hand written for students. \nIsn't the kid who is amazing at utilizing tools like ChatGBT going to do much better in the world than the one who does not? Your idea of \"proper education\" would easily regress back to needing to do all subjects scrawled in dirt with sticks and grunted in non-standardized language.", ">\n\nOR, chatgpt will be a great boon to the entire education system:\nIncreased accessibility: ChatGPT and other AI-powered systems can provide education to individuals who otherwise would not have access to it, due to geographical, financial, or other barriers.\n\nPersonalized learning: ChatGPT can provide personalized education experiences based on each student's strengths, weaknesses, and learning style.\n\n24/7 availability: ChatGPT can operate 24/7, providing students with access to education at any time, anywhere, which can be especially beneficial for those with demanding schedules or for individuals in remote areas.\n\nScalability: ChatGPT can provide education to a large number of students simultaneously, which could help to address the shortage of teachers and resources in some areas.\n\nCost-effectiveness: ChatGPT can be a more cost-effective option for providing education compared to traditional methods, as it does not require physical classrooms or teachers.\n\nImproved student engagement: ChatGPT can provide interactive, engaging learning experiences that can hold students' attention and foster deeper learning.\n\n--Source: ChatGPT", ">\n\nThere a lots of places where texts and exams are “open book”. The questions have to be written differently, and the point is that you’re not testing someone’s ability to memorize, but rather their ability to understand. This is a more difficult test to write, so in theory AI could force education to improve since everyone would a virtual tutor with them at all times.", ">\n\nI'm a teacher and I've been thinking a lot about this the last couple months. Changes within the education system/curriculum/syllabus/retraining of teachers will take far too long to keep up with the ease of access to, and success of, chatgpt and AI in general. \nThe only solution moving forward both short and long term is to embrace it, there is no stopping it now anyway and if we don't all want to be out of a job in 5 years we need to - \n- demonstrate feasible/moral/ethical use of such tools\n- create more opportunities for collaborative learning/hands-on/problem solving tasks and ones that increase communication skills between peers. \nHow this applies to each individual, specific task will vary and must require a lot of creativity and trial and error, but I think relying too heavily on your department of education to handle this (or most 'boots on the ground' problems) will ultimately only degrade a students experience and ability for learning.", ">\n\nI'm with you on what you're trying to accomplish. I just don't know that it's the \"best\" way. \nFor instance, how is homework performed in school superior to trusting the kids to learn the material, which would then be tested by oral exam? And yes, I do believe that asking a student to verbally explain a topic is a really good way to gauge mastery.", ">\n\nThere is not a hope in hell that we'll go back to hand written stuff. That's not how technology works. As the music companies. There are better ways to show you know a subject, for sure, than the current out of-date ones. That's for sure. Have you ever taken an on-line exam?", ">\n\nI argue to let them use chatGPT as it will be their future. This is similar to my generations \"you'll never walk around with a calculator so learn math.\" The future children will grow into a society where work means utilizing AI tech to help them thrive. If chatGPT helps them write an essay, and it's good, it means they're using resources. I agree, however, that we should supplement this with actual reading and writing.", ">\n\nI would argue that most of time that ChatGPT and similar technologies is going to be an issue is in 8-12 grade and college.\nThis technology is not going away, and it's only going to improve. Personally I would treat it like calculators, audio books and spell check.\nTech kids how to use the technology properly. Sure it's somewhat handy to calculate numbers in your head, but having the ability to do math in your head does not give you much of an advantage in today's world and not being able to doesn't hurt you much. But it's still critical to know formulas and how to peace together algebraic statements and word problems. \nKnowing how to spell properly is less important than knowing proper word usage - most times you're writing something it can be spell-checked in real time. Sure it's \"terrible that today's kids...\" don't know how to spell... but it's not going to affect their career. \nEnter ChatGPT - same thing. Should I spend the time to write a white paper on the changing advertising landscape to alert my boss about the a potential seismic shift in advertising revenue, or should I ask ChatGPT to write it? As a user I have to understand its limits and potential copywrite issues, but even more importantly how to verify that what it writes is correct and targeting the right audience. Is data from before 2020 going to be recent and accurate enough for my thesis? How do I supplement the discussion with real-world data? \nThis is our new reality. We should be learning how to use the tools properly, not trying to figure out to lock it down (which frankly makes as much sense as locking down the use of calculators or spell check).", ">\n\nI think there are already apps in place that are able to detect AI generated text (Read this article).\nAlso, I think a better method would be to simply have a database of ChatGPT (could be encrypted) generated text and make it available to already existing software that is use to detect plagiarism (this is just an exemple amongst many)", ">\n\nFrankly I don’t think high schoolers and below should be given homework or tests at all. One learns magnitudes better through exploration as opposed to mindless repetition. Engage with these kids intellectually, make them free thinking Athenians, not bags of knowledge of which they have no idea how to use.\nDoes it not surprise anyone that we train people for over a decade in intellect yet hardly have any intellectuals?", ">\n\nI would argue that society would be better off spending resources on teaching children how to use this tool effectively. Knowing how to get the right answer is what matters in this world.", ">\n\nThen answer this: Well why learn math at all? Seriously.\nWhy learn he concept of subtraction let alone division? I could and society has argued that with the advent of digital calculators. \nYet we learn it. \nLater we use calculators to take the mundane and already known processes to the next level. We abstract away the mundane. \nAs a EE having worked and am working on products you may be using right now to read this, when I develop new silicon and chips I don’t break out Karnaugh maps and lay down circuit using a T square and stencils of gates. But I sure the hell know what I’m doing and expect the tools to do for me. \nTeaching fundamentals of reading, writing, arithmetic, essays, research are just that fundamental.", ">\n\nI’d argue that the vast majority don’t need anything beyond basic math anyways. \nGo ask the average adult if they know the quadratic equation and what it means and you’d probably be disappointed.", ">\n\nChatGPT is here to stay, you'd better advocate for teaching people how to make the most of it and use it wisely instead of pretending it doesn't exist.\nOne of my favourite teachers always told students to use the best tools there are.", ">\n\nI think it depends completely on the topic. In my field of study, it’s fairly easy to come up with term paper assignments that the bot would be useless for. \nLooking back at the paper I wrote last year, I don’t see how any current bot could have helped, as it isn’t able to read or summarize specific sources (yet?).\nAn example of the type of assignments we get is “Discuss the role of state capacity in x and x conflict in light of (specific research paper)‘s dimensions of state capacity - do your findings confirm the findings of (authors), why or why not?\nThis way of combining literature made it difficult even for me to be on top of it, as there were no sources that had attempted this exact combination - it has to be original. \nAlso, I find it’s the best way to learn, because you have to rely on your own judgement and there are no shortcuts, even asking the professor was unhelpful as he wasn’t too familiar with the details.", ">\n\nThis is not the best way.", ">\n\n\nThese homework rooms would have Internet connected computers for use but access to ChatGPT would be filtered and blocked.\n\nThis wouldn't be feasible, there's far too many roundabout ways to still access ChatGPT. Security measures like domain filtering are just unproductive games of whack-a-mole. \nEdit: removed all the other stuff I wrote, as those points have already been mentioned in previous top-level comments.", ">\n\nHomework shouldn’t be the go-to method of “education” to begin with. Imo Universities should focus on the integral part of education: the lectures. Tools like chatgpt can help student who are actually interested in a subject to learn more easily about it, but whether students actually learn anything or not from a class won’t change regardless of if work is authentic or copied from an AI\nSource: I’m a college student and have had experience in both supervised environments where we had to do work without the use of computers/phones and solely-online environments where many students cheated", ">\n\nWhile this could work, it is not necessarily the best way in terms of accessibility and of learning in general. \nFirst, students with ADHD and certain other conditions may not necessarily be the able to be productive at all times, or at the specific time they have to work on those computers, especially if those computers are not in an environment ideal to that specific person. It would also not be very feasible to give students enough time on these computers to complete the bigger assignments and essays. \nSecond, while ChatGPT is quite advanced, it simply works by looking at language patterns and often gets factual details incorrect. For example, with bigger coding problems, it tries to import modules that do not exist or call on functions that it has not defined. In literature, it cannot analyze texts on much more than a surface level. I will admit it can use secondary sources for textual analysis, however, it is unable to come up with a clear thesis on its own. \nAdditionally, take-home tests can be just as easily cheated on using a normal Google search, and usually test thinking skills rather than understanding and knowledge. \nFinally, essay-writing and other types of assignments are generally not ideal for learning as they are only one type of skill, and university professors are recognizing this. Not only do they not work for all learning styles, but they are only used so commonly because of tradition. University professors are structuring assignments around ways that are innovative enough that ChatGPT is unable to work on them. Along with requiring specific readings which the AI might not have access to, and citing of all sources (which has always been a requirement that the AI might trip up on), they are also going away from the traditional essay format into others. For example, I am studying literature, a relatively essay-heavy field, and in my past few courses I have been asked to analyze comics (which the AI cannot read), edit other people’s essays and articles (from past courses), create a mock syllabus or lesson plan with justifications for each reading, and create annotated bibliographies as a stepping stone to an essay. All of these not only require different skills and encourage different types of learning and research but are quite difficult for an AI to do. \nAll in all, while your suggestion is great, the very nature of the AI and the fact that it exists at all is perhaps a sign that the best course of action is to rework the way we think about evaluation. After all, if an evaluation is such that an AI can complete it without the ability to actually think (it works by using observed language patterns), then perhaps the evaluation is not ideal.", ">\n\nI bet teachers and people thought the same thing about calculators when they came out or 1990s internet. AI bots like chat GPT are just a tool.", ">\n\nAll this effectively does is train kids to accomplish goals of a type that do not exist in the real world in a situation they will never realistically encounter. A better goal is adjusting testing criteria to account for this.\nThere might be very specific sets of knowledge for which rote memorization is appropriate, and for those, the air gapped testing may be appropriate. But I believe those are the exception rather than the rule. By and large, teaching kids to effectively utilize the tools that will be available to them is what we should be doing.", ">\n\nImagine learning where the only books are hand written.\nThe printing press took out a huge amount of repetitive labor in the learning process.\nAI/ChatGPT stands a good chance of removing a huge amount knowledge labor which stands between an idea and the end product. Learning to use the AI to best effect the Idea->End Product Chain is more important than worrying about memorizing formulae we will likely never need to remember. \nThe effort to restrict ChatGPT is just education system worrying about their Cheese Being Moved.", ">\n\nThis just doesn't make any sense to me. You're arguing that we shouldn't allow students to use tools they would have at their disposal in a real working environment, and for what? Why wouldn't you want students to use every tool at their disposal? How exactly is handicapping them helping them to understand the coursework?\nA much better approach would be to fundamentally alter how we teach to better prepare them for the workforce. Encouraging collaboration and creative problem solving skills is much more practical and effective.", ">\n\nChatGPT may pass the Bar, but I highly doubt it will replace lawyers or other professionals. \nThe whole point of credentialing is to drive accountability. Anyone can study the law and cite precedent without a law degree. Actually representing a client in a court of law requires oversight and knowledge. ChatGPT isn't perfect - it will make mistakes from time to time. So who is responsible when it makes a mistake? When is a client (who is not familiar with the law) supposed to know that a mistake has been made on their behalf? For this reason, until ChatGPT is literally perfect you're always going to need a credentialed professional to review the output.\nFor the record, I think ChatGPT is wonderful. But it's a tool that people will use, not a full-fledged replacement for professionals. My employer (a Fortune 500 company) has already rejected its use for internal projects. IT has the website blocked.", ">\n\nThe kids that are educated without its use will fall behind in business when faced with kids that are using it to its fullest extent.\nYou've successfully made an argument for people to succeed in a test that is worthless in the real world. Its parameters don't match.", ">\n\nThe best way to educate children is to teach them skills and strategies that will actually serve them in the workplace of the future. \nChatGPT already has reached the point of replacing humans (See Buzzfeed news). If ChatGPT can take the test or do the homework then what value is that education going to be to these students? Especially older students will quickly see rote memorization as a waste of time and so yes they probably will cheat if they have the opportunity. Trying to force these things to be “learned” and prove that knowledge by brute force banning things is going to be a costly uphill battle.", ">\n\nWhat if we modify how essays are written by students, by asking them to include citations (which is something ChatGPT can’t do)?\nWe can’t stop new tools from making old methods obsolete. But we can focus on enhancing critical thinking of students in a stepwise manner. When a new tool is created, think about how you can adapt rather than resist it.", ">\n\nWhy not just train an ai to spot ai written papers?", ">\n\nWhat about gradually putting more emphasis on oral assignments?", ">\n\nEverything you said makes perfect sense...IF the goal was to teach children simply how to write the perfect standard essay. But that is a very limited way of viewing education and what its real goal is. The real goal of education is to teach children how to think. To come up with the right questions, not just the right answers. In a world where a \"good enough\" essay on literally anything can be conjured as if by magic by a machine, what's the actual value of that exercise now? For a very long time teachers have used the essay as a way to evaluate how a person thinks. Now that a machine can write it for you, we need new ways to evaluate how students think. That's the real task we are facing. Fuck the essay, just like we ditched the slide rule for calculators and later computers, etc. Tools change but the real game remains the same: Think for yourself!", ">\n\nI'd say the best way would be to accept the reality of changing technology and reevaluating the approach we have towards education as a whole.\nGranted, I'd say that's only one half of the picture: reassessing how we conceive if jobs and labour in the face of increasing automation goes along with that, and I think neither really works without the other.\nBottom line is that human labour is more and more obsolete as time goes on, so human jobs will be less and less in demand (I'd argue moving away from a capitalistic system is the right call, but even if you don't, automation is still an incentive).\nSince a large part of the incentive of our current education system is \"prepare you for a job\" I think the whole thing is going to fall short in light of these kinds of systems developing.\nTheres lots of people now who pursue knowledge as a project of passion, rather than a means to an end, and I think moving to a system that supports and encourages that kind of ambition is the way to go.", ">\n\nI disagree. We should learn to use the tools we have efficiently. Otherwise you are not learning for your career but for some professors ego", ">\n\nThat’s not “education in the era of ChatGPT.” That’s education in the era before ChatGPT while we figure out what the world with ChatGPT will look like so we have some idea of what to do with it.\nThat’s also not “educating,” that’s just “assessment.” Assessment is simply a measuring system for education. As long as you think of the acquisition of knowledge and skill as requiring knowledge regurgitation and skill performance in isolation and divorced from context/individualized, then you’re going to end up at necessitating a kind of geofenced, Luddite assessment model. The training itself predicates the assessment method. How we assess is defined by how we teach, and vice versa.\nThe best assessment method to gauge understanding is, and always has been, conversation.\nAll we need to do is pair assessment with regular conversation between qualified teacher and student to determine if personal comprehension is present. Not an interview, not an interrogation — conversation. Problem solving performance contexts are also great revealer of internalized knowledge and skill.\nChatGPT is a relative nonissue if your approach to assessment is at all human.\nIt’s only a problem when you’re trying to mechanize and dehumanized education. “Rigorous” does not mean “mechanical.” We are going to have to trust the professional, knowledge- and skill-assessing judgements of humans who already know and can do.\nEducation reverts to having more emphasis on apprenticeship and mentorship models, where the relationship itself is part of the learning process. \n(The “accountability!” cranks are gonna love that…)", ">\n\nI have a strong suspicion that discussions like this, while very interesting, will be obsolete long before any changes can actually be implemented in schools. In fact, I'm pretty sure schools will be gone entirely in the near future.\nAs of right now, you can be taught almost any subject by an exceptionally well-spoken, fast and infinitely patient teacher called GPT to a university level, if not higher. Try it right now - go ask GPT to explain the political situation that allowed Alexander the Great to conquer Persia, or ask it to explain the raytracing algorithm. If there's a part you don't understand, ask it to clarify. You'll be amazed how accessible it makes advanced topics.\nNow, how long before we have VR software with a realistic-looking AI teacher, with an AI-generated voice, who can do the same thing, but respond to students' voices and use body language and visual demonstrations? Five years?\nHow long after that before this tech is cheap, and of such high quality that sending your kids to school will be a worse education?\nNow in, say, 20 years, we could have an AI system that takes a DNA sample, analyses a students genotype to understand what subjects they will be naturally good at, what education approaches will be most successful, and continuously improves its model of the student's behavior by observing them. It crafts a decades-long education journey tailored to the individual, and accompanies them the entire way.\nTeachers, as far as they've existed so far, don't have a chance.", ">\n\nAre you trying to test someone or teach them?\nIf the latter, why do you care about cheating? This reminds me of the ol' teachers who used to restrict calculators because \"you won't always have a calculator with you.\"", ">\n\nYou forget that for 99% of homework students could just copy each other's work. Having the answers out in the world accessible is not a new problem. You just make homework a small part of the grades and you make sure students understand it's important to actually do it or they won't do well on the tests.", ">\n\nThere are so many people that can’t do the basic math examples you mentioned somewhere and they went to school at a time when there were no calculators.\nOn the other hand I was allowed to use calculators in school pretty much the moment I left elementary school and I am really quite good at math even without assistance.\nTool usage is one of humanities key features and trying to work against it instead of finding ways to incorporate new technology into school and life seems backwards.", ">\n\nIronically the teacher will have to use an AI to decipher the \"hand written\" assignments.", ">\n\nYou can't force people to learn.", ">\n\nWhat about teaching how to think rather than how to memorize? Just a thought 💭", ">\n\nThey need to get rid of homework, and have students do their work while they're at school. It's awful, they just pile it on, even if a class only has a little homework that day, there's like 6 or 7 classes so it's a nightmare for students. Seems like the only way to prevent cheating is have them do work in class, so I hope for the students sake, they do that.", ">\n\nI’ll throw my idea into the ring, though we’re still a few years off from this technology:\nWe should have students interact with AI tutors that can prompt them questions and point out details. Then they can collaborate on assignments, and the AI tutor can give feedback and suggest snippets. The AI can evaluate their work and their engagement with the material.", ">\n\nOne of Transformers main applications is in search. Ie you get a set of embeddings you can compare the pairwise distances between embedding and get a list of scores that tell you which embeddings are most similar to the input. \nEssentially tools like google are made to reduce the search space for a given query collect likely links and then rerank the most likely results. \nChatgpt basically does this in a more direct way of searching through a space of potential responses. Basically trained on a task to predict next token given the previous tokens or fill in a mask\nTransformers permeate everything students use from the recommendation algorithms on TikTok Facebook, YouTube to search systems in google. \nIn my opinion students should absolutely not be taught to fear these tools tho I do agree they be tested in constrained environments to challenge them. Current systems should not be used to learn unless you have a clear understanding and are willing to check every word and check your reasoning. Future systems will be much better though so this problem isn’t going anywhere. \nIf anything there should be a push to make these ideas more interpretable to a younger audience and give them the tools to navigate an increasingly complex market of ideas. They should be aware of the limitations and how when they use a piece of software their actions and the actions of those around them are influencing what they see next. \nIt should be used and taught with rigor. \nIt’s programming 2.0", ">\n\nDude no; \nChatGPT is the computer. \nDo you want to be the education system that banned the computer and then wondered why all the other education systems output modern tech workers, while your education system kept outputting chimney sweeps and car factory workers?", ">\n\nHW only exists to make students practice, and generally is worth less than 20% of the grade in a class. If a student chooses to use chat GPT to bypass it then that’s the student’s loss.\nUltimately exams are what schools use to evaluate a students knowledge and I don’t think that’s going to change anytime soon", ">\n\nThere are already programs that check if something was written by an AI or not. Also no student I know actually uses chatGPT for major assignments because chatGPT doesn’t know every text to ever be published so it doesn’t understand the context, and most of the time will just bullshit an answer that’s incorrect.\nEveryone I know that uses chatGPT for school do so for either for assignments so small and simple that it doesn’t make sense to quarantine, or they use it as a more advanced google that can answer questions more accurately than a search engine could, essentially just saving time.\n(most) students are using chatGPT largely as a productivity and time management tool rather than to cheat.", ">\n\nThis is like saying “in the age of calculators, the only way to ensure kids learn maths is to ban calculators in school”. If looked at correctly, chatgpt is an effect multiplier, learning just has to be rejigged to have kids learn to do things that they can’t simply ask chatgpt to do for them.", ">\n\nLess course work and more exams is the future in a world with chatGPT.", ">\n\nChatGPT will be a big no issue soon. I work in a research field and this was something we worried about last year. As of now there are multiple tools and even more being developed that catch the use of ChatGPT. There has been research published that list ChatGPT as a co-author, but for most research, and use by students, it will simply be forbidden and will easily be caught as well. The program does well but it has a particular style that can be caught. Again it will be a non-issue soon.", ">\n\nThis is like forbidding people to use a calculator because it can give you the result instant. A better way is to teach them how to use the calculator, because its here now and won't go away. Same with GPT. Children can learn way better/faster with ChatGPD if used correctly. Imaging having a private teacher for free which helps you learning every time of the day.", ">\n\nLet me ask you this. If ChatGPT could complete a students whole assignment, what would that student have learned from doing that assignment on their own that won’t simply be replaced with ChatGPT by a employer in the future?\nEven if ChatGPT doesn’t replace workers for a decade, why teach students skills that will inevitably be replaced and leave said students jobless in a decade?\nChatGPT won’t only be used in the workforce either. Linus Tech Tips has a video showing how ChatGPT can help people learn new skills and do troubleshooting on their own. If I remember correctly, he manages to completely build a pc by only strictly following what ChatGPT tells him to. It even managed to suggest the best parts for that computers specific use case. It was nowhere near perfect, but in the future it will get there.\nSince ChatGPT is such a useful tool in the workforce and at home, I think it’s crucial we teach students how to use it instead of banning them from it. Maybe students should be given a problem and tasked to use ChatGPT to find the solution or have students attempt to learn a new topic with ChatGPT. I’m not a teacher, I just thought of those examples of the top of my head. I’m sure qualified teachers could think of better assignments than me.\nI could see ChatGPT helping a mechanic diagnose an issue so the mechanic could spend more time fixing the problem rather than diagnosing and I can think of a few examples in other jobs as well where ChatGPT will help a worker be more efficient and save more time.\nI think, if anything, we’re setting students up for failure by not teaching them about these tools that will take over the workforce and help in everyday life.", ">\n\nYou’ll still have to pass a test. Relax.", ">\n\nIt “fairs” extremely well? Maybe some additional time spent observing ChatGPT could actually benefit some", ">\n\nThere’s just no way you can use ChatGPT to do all of your work for you and be successful at any moderately high level of academic pursuit. Not without learning the material yourself, and if you’ve done that, I don’t think it matters so much whether you used chatGPT and for what along the way.\nFrankly if you start our using chatGPT early in school, you won’t even be able to ask the right questions in the right way and include the necessary refinements to do more complex and demanding assignments down the road. \nAlso, tests are still a thing aren’t they? ChatGPT doesn’t help you perform in person in a monitored environment - not in a way that would allow you to skip learning the material. I don’t really get this aspect of your cmv. As long as tests don’t allow access to ChatGPT, anyone who didn’t learn the material is going to be exposed..", ">\n\nThere are already programs that detect ChatGPT writing.", ">\n\nThe children who want to cheat will always find a way to do so. It doesn’t matter how much you do to restrict it, it’ll just make them find new means of doing so. \nSource: I did GCSE’s in the UK, AP in the US. Trust, kids will cheat even in sterile environments. Especially if it’s a huge room and there are few moderators. A lot of us are scared of repercussions but those who aren’t won’t let anything stand in there way—region and proctoring be damned.", ">\n\nI require them to complete an outline first. Outline must be submitted to me before I take the essay. Google doc lets you see that they write it and when each sentence was written. It’s helped.", ">\n\nCHATGPT is a tool, and in some applications (not all), it can help students do their homework. Consider the calculator. Do students not need to learn formulas and critical thinking just because they can punch numbers into calculators?\nNo, math is still a skill that is valuable if for no other reason then because it trains your brain to solve problems.\nOne of the things that surprises me is that ChatGPT can use words and explain things to students even when a teacher is not available or when there isn’t one. we should consider this an educational opportunity rather than a disadvantage.\nThere are so many amazing things we humans can do when we simply have tools to help us. ChatGPT is no different.", ">\n\nYou can’t force people to live in the past. Chat GPT is here to stay. Education now needs to focus on teaching people how to use AI, and how to develop a skill that can’t be replaced by AI." ]
> Thats not it. I don’t have an answer for you, but thats not it.	[ "/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^\| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.", ">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?", ">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.", ">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?", ">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.", ">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?", ">\n\nYou mean a grade?", ">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication", ">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.", ">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)", ">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.", ">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.", ">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.", ">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.", ">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?", ">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.", ">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.", ">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.", ">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.", ">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.", ">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.", ">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.", ">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.", ">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.", ">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.", ">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.", ">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.", ">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.", ">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use", ">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.", ">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.", ">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.", ">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.", ">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.", ">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.", ">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.", ">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).", ">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.", ">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.", ">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.", ">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.", ">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.", ">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.", ">\n\n\nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \n\nWhy? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it. \n\nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \n\nWhy? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? \nLet's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project. \n\nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.\n\nTotally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator.", ">\n\nFor the most part, knowledge workers perform a given amount of work in a given amount of hours, and the number of them hired by a company is TotalHoursNeeded/NumHoursPerEmployee. E.g. if you have 100 manyears of work to get done in a typical year, you employ 100 people.\nChat GPT isn't going to \"replace\" people wholesale, because as you say someone still needs to supervise it. But it looks to be on track to increase the productivity of programmers (can write a first draft of code and finds many of the bugs instantly). \nSame for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones. \nSo now the TotalNeeded is decreased by some percentage, let's say 10% to start. Now you only need 90 human programmers to do that same work. With 25% efficiency gain, you need 75. With 50%, 50. Etc. \nOr take translation jobs. Today, an editor spends roughly 3 minutes per word editing machine translated text, and 1 minute per word editing human-translated text. As long as editors are more expensive per hour than first translation people, it still makes sense much of the time to hire translators, because the software isn't free. \nBut the graph of machine translation \"efficiency\" is trending towards taking the same amount of time to edit as a human translator. As soon as that's hit, there's literally no reason to hire human translators, only editors. \nAnd if the editing time goes down to 30 seconds/word because of further AI assistance to the editor, you only need half as many of those.", ">\n\nThere is currently two better solutions being worked on - one of which is already being used to some degree. \nThe first is ChatGPT developers themselves making moves to make AI written works to be identified by \"watermark\" or similar. I don't thi k this one has taken effect at all yet. \nAnother is by a separate dev team that allows teachers to use software to determine the amount of an essay, for example, that is written by AI what the likelihood of any one sentence or paragraph to have been written by AI. This allows the teachers to use discretion when determining if the student used the AI in a way that they find acceptable or not. This way instead kf running from the scary AI educators can actually utilize tyhe AI with students to help them develop their writing and other communications.", ">\n\nWhat about kids with transportation issues? When I was in school I knew kids that drove almost an hour each way to get there. I certainly couldn’t have asked my parents to drop everything to take me all the way to school so I could do my homework if I forgot. Bus schedules? Do you think schools want to waste more money by burning more gas for extra routes? I understand where you’re coming from, but for a fair amount of children—especially in poorer, more rural areas—that getting to school and back is such a delicate balancing act that such a thing would just punish them.", ">\n\nI've seen a few key things from academics testing out ChatGPT (I have not signed up myself):\n\nIt tends to produce confident, convincing nonsense. It doesn't actually understand what it's writing about, and I hear it shows.\nIt makes up citations. Real authors in the field, real journals... but made-up titles. Things like that, since, again, it doesn't actually understand citations.\n\nThis suggests that, for assignments requiring the demonstration of genuine, in-depth understanding, and not merely the ability to summarize facts, ChatGPT will fail.\nA similar example that you bring up in the comments is programming cheat sheets into calculators - but for well-designed engineering exams (including the licensure exams, at least in the US), cheat sheets are fine and often either allowed or provided. A well-designed exam tests the ability to apply principles, not knowledge of equations, so a cheat sheet is harmless, or even allows the exam to work better (since people aren't distracted with memorizing equations).", ">\n\nThere are three criticisms that I have of this approach. \n\n\nShould we not teach to the environment that we live in? Yes, education often imposes arbitrary constraints like time tests but for research and reports why not let people use and work around all resources? If you can work around chat gpt to work efficiently, then do it. You learn what it can and can’t do and how to use it effectively as a tool. \n\n\nCan chatGPT on it’s own actually write a good essay? From what I have seen it can pull together a few sources. It can generally write fluff based on other things that it has seen. But it struggles to write analysis. It can’t interrogate a source or make value judgements. It could be useful for doing some filler or providing ideas but if to do an actual report, I think it would be insufficient. \n\n\nAn assignment that can be done using chatgpt is probably boring. Here I am writing an essay for no reason other than I find it interesting to discuss this topic. Perhaps, we arent giving students interesting enough assignments or we are overloading them to the point that they don’t have the time to engage? If chatGPT turns out to be an issue maybe it’s more of an indictment of the structures and norms of education.", ">\n\n\n\nhomework in the form of essays, take home tests, coding assignments, would be completed on school grounds. \n\n\nCongratulations, you've invented the \"cram school\".\nI'd recommend reading through your post again and actually thinking about the things you've said. Because essentially, you're merely advocating for the wholesale elimination of homework and for education outside of that to remain totally unchanged. It's almost literally, \"Make the school day 30% longer\".\nMy solution to the \"problem\" of students potentially using ChatGPT to cheat on homework: I don't think you need a hilariously convoluted system of homework \"boiler rooms\" redolent of national security apparatus, that requires schools to adopt ruinously expensive and disruptive technological and administrative changes.\nIt would be sufficient if we institute a system whereby teachers are encouraged to, let's say... \"test\" their students, whether by regular written exams or by talking to them in what I'll call \"classes\", to ensure they understand the material they've been assigned to learn.\nThis method ensures that students cannot use AI homework bots to coast through classes (since they'll literally be found out the very next class), and has the added benefit of not adding three hours to every teacher's day.", ">\n\nWhat about pen and ink?", ">\n\narguably I can just copy a ChatGPT output by hand. So I think that is a first level measure, but not a complete solution.", ">\n\nIt's a better solution than prison just because the curriculum can't keep up with technology.\nWhen calculators arrived on everyone's phone and everyone's pocket did you advocate for the same solution? Unlikely, so why only now with this system?", ">\n\nWell I did and I was. When I was studying engineering in the 80s we routinely could not arrive at exams with a calculator. Even then calculators were programmable enough to allow students to write cheat sheets in calculator memory.\nIt forced us to memorize equations, principals of engineering, and independent thinking. I’m a better engineer because I did.", ">\n\nSo you're what, almost 60? And you think what's best for children is to be like you? Don't you think you may be a bit out of touch?\nAlso, your view was about K12 students, not engineering students.", ">\n\nNo. As I replied, leaning on tools as a crutch all your life will limit your ability and function as a human. For example, you could argue that basic math isn’t necessary. As matter of fact that was an argument years ago with the advent of calculators.\nHowever, humans should be able to exist and functions without a digital crutch. You should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator. You should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google. There are basic elements of duration necessary since we are all still wet grey matter.", ">\n\n\nYou should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator\n\nBut why?\n\nYou should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google\n\nAgain, why?\nWhere do you get your \"should\" from?\nI have basically all human knowledge in my hand, every equation or conversion I'll ever need day to day, even every language I'll likely ever encounter. Why shouldn't I leave my brain free to think about what it wants and to use my incredible resource as and when it's needed?\nDo you envision some Saw-like situation where you're locked to a wall and need to solve maths equations at pain of death?", ">\n\nThe less you use your brain the less likely your body is to maintain it. Our body functions through a use or lose it principle. Just look people who lose movement function/muscle just by being bedridden for a long time. Our brain is not different.\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.", ">\n\nIs wasting resources on process you can deletage outside not using your brain? You free up that space to put to what you decide is important.\n\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.\n\nThe weakest man with a gun can take out the strongest bodybuilder.", ">\n\nAnd if you decide Tik tok and Netflix are important? How do you think that will affect the cognitive ability of kids?\nI didn't mention strength nor physical strength. And even then the strongest man with a gun will probably take out the weakest man with a gun.(An actual fair comparison)", ">\n\nCouldn't chatgpt (or somesuch AI) be asked \"Hey - did you write this?\" and nip this sort of thing in the bud?", ">\n\nNo, Chat GPT doesn't remember everything it's said, the potential things it could say are huge and even if someone wrote something that Chat GPT might say, it could be a coincidence.", ">\n\nWell, strike that idea then.\nStill though - there must be some way to use AI to deal with this. \"set a thief to catch a thief\" and all that.", ">\n\nChat GPT (and most generative AIs) use GANs to generate content. \nIn laymen's terms (and extremely simplified as it's above my level of understanding) a GAN is 2 AI systems competing against each other, a creator AI that creates content and a checker AI that decides if the content was genuine or made by the other AI. \nSo any automated way to tell if it's AI generated can be built into the checker AI in future versions and the creator AI will learn to avoid whichever features the checker AI is spotting.", ">\n\nChatGPT is just another mechanism for reducing the need for labor, and it's not going away. \nChildren will need to be educated in both how to make effective use of it (for as long as it's not sufficient to completely eliminate mental labor), and also in the ethics of not using it. Always forcing them to write in airgapped places isn't going to do that, it just makes them resent it. \nAlso: essay writing on a scale needed to really learn long-form writing is not very amenable to doing in an airgapped classroom, because honestly we're not using dead-tree sources of information anymore already, so doing their research pretty much has to include doing it on line. \nBut really: laborious manual long-form essay writing is going to go the way of penmanship and looking things up in a library as an unneeded skill very quickly. We need children to adjust to that reality of the modern world rather than pretending it will go away. \nPeople are still needed (for now) to do the important part of writing essays without doing the laborious bit that ChatGPT automates anyway: deciding what to write, and editing it into a convincing and well-written form. \nForcing kids to spend a lot of time learning how to write the basic bulk part of essays is a lot like teaching them how to make buggy-whips in shop class: a pointless exercise. \nIt would be better to give them all prewritten ChatGPT essays and have them learn the limitations and capabilities.", ">\n\nIs ChatGPT really that much more effective than just grabbing things off Wikipedia? I was asking it things about elections and it was just Wikipedia from two years ago", ">\n\nThe answer is NEVER to limit technology. It’s to teach the new generation how to use that technology to achieve the same goal.\nIt’s pointless to ban computers and teach the memorization of dates in history class. It’s much more productive to teach online research skills so that if an individual needs to know the date of a particular moment in history, they can reliably Google it.\nChatGPT is the same. It renders writing essays as pointless, and it necessitates the teachers to adapt to new teaching styles, such as teaching the skills on how best to manipulate ChatGPT to return the information you need.", ">\n\nI was banned from using programming calculators when I studied engineering in the 80s during exams. It forced the students to all be on the same level playing field and forced us to actually know the equations, their applications, and the processes of whatever engineering course I was taking.\nIt made us better engineers.", ">\n\nHow does handicapping you make you a better engineer? If I put you and an engineer trained with technology in the same room together, who do you think would accomplish the task faster?", ">\n\nThe handicapped engineer, easily. The point of forcing students to actually learn the material is so that they understand how to reason about the underlying processes when they need to troubleshoot something going wrong, and understand the tradeoffs between approaches and how to select the best one for the task. \nOnce you understand things deeply you don't actually need training in doing things quickly because it's immediately intuitive how to apply a technological process to save time. The guy that leaned heavily on technology is basically fucked if he has to use a technique or software that he didn't specifically train on since he doesn't have a good foundation to abstract from. It would be more appropriate to call this person a technician.", ">\n\nThe purpose of calculators is to do the menial part of the work, not to solve whole processes. The engineer that learned with calculators likely knows how to select the right process to solve a problem, but uses the calculator to do the math faster and with fewer errors.", ">\n\nAt the college level, we’re not talking about tools to add and multiply. We’re talking about tools like Wolfram Alpha that do entire symbolic manipulations for you. If I took a calculus class and on all the assignments used Wolfram Alpha to find derivatives, do you think I would have learned anything?\nThat is what ChatGPT is doing for essays", ">\n\nThere are things called pencil and paper.", ">\n\nAs I said, this is the first line defense. However as I already commented to another user. I can simply hand copy ChatGPT output. Essentially not doing my own independent research, writing, coding, and studying.", ">\n\nWhy don't you consider that research? \nThe first source was the best. It's incredibly efficient research IMO.", ">\n\nThe idea of tool removal has always been flawed. From calculators to chat GPT and beyond. If your test is so flimsy that a simple tool invalidates it then the test is poorly built. Test shouldn't be simple busywork tasks, they should require thinking, problem solving, complex thought. If it's just a game of memorization that can be cheated by answers on a paper, you've built a bad test.\nover memorization (which is what our current school systems teach) is not only unhelpful, but also harmful. We live in an era of wikipedia being a reliable source, of vast access to tools both online and phsycial. We should be teaching kids they should do the work but with the help of those tools, not despite them.\nThe main issue with your argument is that based on what you've said, i can assume you think the current school system is a good one but so many studies have shown that at least here in the US, the school systems are some of the worst in the world. It's this memorize, ignore tools, singular focus mentality that plays such a big role.\nIf we were more creative with education, incorporating tool utilization into the learning process, we'd likely have a major improvement to our educational successes. I could go on about how the education system prefers certain kinds of students over others, and how many students are left behind simply because they don't learn like other kids and are therefore punished, but I won't. All I'll say is that more restrictions on how and what kids learn isn't going to help them learn more or better.\nand in 15 years when chat GPT is a part of daily life in every single company on the planet in some way or another (which I'm beyond certain it will be), kids who were taught how to properly utilize it will have just such a huge advantage in the workforce over those who weren't", ">\n\nRather than attempt to find ways to prevent new technology from interfering with existing pedagogy, shouldn't we review and revise pedagogy as new technology develops? \nIf a chat AI program can write these things, what is the point of having humans repeatedly do the same work? We don't expect people to use an abacus when doing math, or limit their research to what's in the library card catalogue, or require printed paper publications as essay resources; we adapted to the calculator, and to the internet and search engines. So too should we adapt to things like ChatGPT, not by trying to pretend it doesn't exist, but by finding ways to incorporate it into a more holistic approach to learning.\nRather than chain kids to an airgapped room on school grounds outside of school hours to do homework that's of dubious educational value in the first place, we should take this as an opportunity to refocus schooling on in-class engagement and direct instruction. ChatGPT and programs like it are showing us yet another thing we as humans can outsource to our technology, so why struggle to do things in a more difficult and inefficient way?", ">\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\nIn addition, AI is only as good as the data it is fed. You must still be able to do the work on your own to analyze when the AI is giving valid outputs (garbage in, garbage out). This is especially true, when AI runs the risks of being owned or operated by those with a specific agenda. Can you imagine the trouble that would result if people relied on AI to determine who to vote for, but someone was able to pay the operators to have the AI promote them?\nRelying on AI to do our work for us is a distillation of an appeal to authority fallacy on a large scale (if the AI says it, it must be true).", ">\n\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\n\nThis is something I worry about A LOT when it comes to AI. Our collective understanding of the subjects that we usually classify as \"the humanities\" is constantly evolving as we learn more, and especially as a more diverse set of people are allowed to study, research and put forth opinions and arguments.\nImagine if students were outsourcing all their history, psychology, sociology and philosophy homework to a chatbot with a 1950s understanding of those subjects.\nImagine doctors outsourcing psych patient diagnoses to a chatbot with the same understanding.\nOn an arguably less \"serious\" but still critically important moral and political topic, imagine if all/most videogame art was outsourced to an AI engine with a 1990s sensibility for female characters. Same for all kinds of representation and diversity.\nHow about politics and political science in general... ha!\nEtc, etc etc.\nIt is NOT the case that we already have discovered all the true answers to the big questions, and we can merely turn to a \"knowledge calculator\" like ChatGPT to spit out the truth.\nEven if AI can pretty accurately reflect the discourse of the day, as it is currently understood and accepted, our collective knowledge and culture will stagnate if we do not actively participate in developing it, and we will all pay the price for that.", ">\n\nThese are all moralistic arguments that ultimately don’t mean anything.", ">\n\nI would say they are more epistemic arguments, which do matter greatly in the context of education (which is what the op was referring to).", ">\n\nAre any of these things mentioned actually realistic concerns? Someone is going to train an AI bot to generate 90s female art characters with big tits?\nNo. Lol and even if someone did, who cares?", ">\n\nConsidering how many people believe obviously fake stories that have no supporting evidence (and in spite of contrary evidence), yes, I believe they are very real concerns.\nIf an AI says we should use Brawndo in farming because its got what plants crave (electrolytes), we should probably be able to justify it with reasoning beyond \"the AI says so.\"", ">\n\nWho is suggesting we do anything “just because an AI said so”? \nDo you read books and think everything in it is true “because the book says so”?", ">\n\nHow do you determine if what the book/ai said is false?\nYou would typically do it through a process of research and discovery.\nPeoples' ability to do research and discovery will be greatly diminished if we rely on AI to do those things for us (which is what the previous posters were suggesting).\nTherefore, reliance on AI will lead to us losing the ability to discern if the results of what the AI is saying is correct.", ">\n\nWhat? Lol that doesn’t make any sense at all. \nIt is not like if we use AI then all previous knowledge is simply forgotten or lost. It’s all still there.", ">\n\nForcing homework at school makes that \"not homework\", and this approach has never worked. You cant reject change, it never works. Every time there has been a game changing event, people adapted. Those who tried to reject change disappeared. Horse carriages disappeared from roads because something else replaced it. Some people supposedly rejected progress, but they are lying to themselves, they still use modern tech or services at some point.\nAnyway, the change is here, and it made essays irrelevant. Time to find another way to test people skills. \nGive it a little time though. ChatGPT costs a ginormous amount of money to run and will not stay free for long either.", ">\n\nIt's not just ChatGPT, the actual innovation is not the interface but lies in algorithms that can recreate natural language of similar quality with smaller data samples. There are also OpenSource datasets like ThePile, etc. so even if OpenAI moves to a paid model (and they will, quickly. You can already sign up to be first in line for the API), there will be other free providers.", ">\n\nHaving coded AIs, I disagree. ChatGPT is a regular trained AI. The novelty is the scale of the operation, and the fact there is a public API.\nNo one ever spent that much money on resources to run and train an AI publicly. I am pretty sure google has done something similar with user data sets to make their search engine and general ecosystem.\nI wish there was a way to have algorithms working with smaller data sets and produce similar results, but it kind of does not work that way.", ">\n\nThere are already tools to identify ChatGPT generated texts. Such tools will improve as another use of literally the same technology.\nJust as teachers submit essays for identifying plagiarism, teachers will submit essays for identifying AI-generated text. \nFurther, a focus could change from grading students on what they know to grading students' ability to ask meaningful, content-based questions about the subject. After all, knowing facts isn't particularly valuable as a skill. Integrating facts and discovering valuable questions is still something that remains a uniquely human skill. And is where people will continue to add value as AI becomes more advanced.", ">\n\nStudents have always been able to 'cheat' on work done outside the classroom, by copying or somehow getting others to do their work for them, even before the internet. Yes with more advanced modern technology it is easier but this has always been a concern. \nAs regular learning environments like supervised classrooms are already 'quarantined' in the way you descibe you are fundementally just suggesting an increase in learning hours as a supplement to homework. This has been suggested by many for various reasons but it would overall cuase more issues than it fixes. It increases work load on teachers and administrators, stretching already thin educational budgets, and forces increased mental strain on children. It would limit their ability to do other recreational and out of ciriculum activities. This would be disruptive and controlling when the quantity of teaching and learning time that children recive is already considered sufficiant for a good education.", ">\n\nHell the only thing stopping me from using ChatGPT regularly for my work now is that it's always at capacity.", ">\n\nApply tests that are hand written, doesnt matter how a person obtains the knowledge, actually learning the subject is most important thing.", ">\n\nThere is no amount of ChatGPT that could influence a good old oral exam where the teacher evaluates the understanding via a little chat.", ">\n\nSo tired of this view. We shouldn’t be fighting technology. Teach kids to use the resources they have to find answers. It’s such a waste of 12 years of school, teaching kids to memorize facts and follow rules. \nInstead, every test should be open book and reward the best answers. Ask the kids to show their work or explain their thought process so we reward understanding of a topic rather than memorization of steps or text.", ">\n\n20 years ago, there were already homework communities and learn groups. Even from the publishers of school books and with free access to tutors. Ok, they didnt do the final homework for me, but gave me a great starting point.\nBeing the kid who transcribes a wiki page was already stupid back then when others could call you out:\nBut I guess the actual problem is lack of digital literacy with teachers, they're always 5-10 years behind.", ">\n\nIf you are testing skills that can be done by free tools on the internet, then you are testing irrelevant skills.\nThe best way to educate kids is to test for skills they need, not skills they objectively don't.\nI was able to witness a couple of universities adapt to tests during quarantine, and follow reports on how the new methods would be used going forward.\nThe results where thus:\nMass offline testing is incredibly cost efficient (one examiner per ~300 students), but the tests results are a poor indicator of real world performance.\nOne to One testing is incredibly expensive, but can, when done right, test actual understanding and performance.\nBoth will be useful, of course. Mass testing is most useful when used in a way that students aren't incentivized to cheat, such as when framed as practice.", ">\n\nOne of the upsides of needing to prevent this kind of tech from cheating assignments is that teachers should focus on having students be able to do their homework at school. (As a former teacher, we were trying to do this already- no more than 15 min of homework per class). \nI dont think we need to do quite what you say. We just need to limit outside electronics and have in-person classrooms or computer labs with programs designed to be AI-proof. \nI have ALWAYS believed that cell phones/internet watches should be stored in school lockers (at most) and never allowed anywhere else on campus during the school day. If anyone needs to contact the students they contact the desk who relays their message/other need. Many schools already do this.", ">\n\n∆\nI agree with this. It would help.", ">\n\nThank you!", ">\n\nThat is utterly pointless.\nThere is no reason to limit the available tools.\nThis just reminds me of the entire \"you won't have a calculator wherever you go\" argument.\nSchool should instead put a focus on responsibly using available tools.", ">\n\nAnd if students choose to use them irresponsibly, what should schools do?\nAnd can you please define what constitutes responsible use? Because despite knowing about plagiarism, people still copy and paste from the internet. Perfect abstinence is easier than perfect moderation after all.", ">\n\nJust return to hand written essays and have more oral exams.", ">\n\n∆l\nActually of all comments having oral exams compliments my post and I agree with you. Enjoy the delta.", ">\n\nIn a Faraday cage.", ">\n\nIf children can just generate work with ChatGPT, it simply shows that children are not being taught anything valuable. (Once ChatGPT responses can be generated in almost unlimited amounts at very low cost, it necessarily means those responses are of low value)\nInstead shouldn't we be teaching children to provide more valuable outcomes that ChatGPT can't replicate?", ">\n\nBeing able to do on your own what ChatGPT does with access to an immense amount of data and processing power is valuable. The actual writing isn't valuable, obviously, but it would be silly to expect it to be. It's just a side effect of practice, you spend time making things of little or no value to build up the skills you'll need to make something that actually matters. That's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\nI think you'd be hard pressed to teach a class of children to outperform ChatGPT in writing without ever asking them to write something that could also be done via AI. What would that even look like?", ">\n\n\nThat's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\n\nIt is a problem. That is why I hated math class until 2nd year of university.", ">\n\nDid you start discovering novel math results in your second year of university, or was that just the point at which you first encountered problems you found interesting, despite the fact that someone else had already solved them before? Thinking back the class you didn't hate, do you think it should be removed if someone can construct an AI to give all the answers you gave?", ">\n\nThis is only a method for evaluating students, it doesn't do anything to educate them.\nChatgpt is potentially a great tool for education but trying to find complex ways around it for homework is pointless. When testing fact retention is required using school/university computers with no web browsing makes sense. For any other test or situation it's a tool that might be used.", ">\n\nI understand OPs concern. That said, I do not think you can create true quarantine for a multitude of reasons. \nThe biggest one is probably time. I worked through high school and university. Because I lived in the middle of nowhere it was about a 30 min drive to high school and then an hour to uni. Having to stay at these quarantine zones to complete assignments would have been hell on my schedule, car, and wallet. \nYou said it yourself, if someone is going to cheat, they will cheat. If I had to do the work in a quarantine zone, what exactly stops me from doing the actual work on my computer at home, printing it all out, and then just writing that into the computer at the quarantine zone? Unless you want to try having students write an entire essay in their hour long class? There has to be a point where they go home and then this falls apart.", ">\n\nThere are already lots of ways to cheat in homework and mostly our steps to deal with that amount to the honour system, and by university level, automated plagiarism detection (which can be quite easily avoided). The point you \"won't argue\" that people will cheat if given the opportunity is probably the actual crux of what's wrong with your suggestion and the part that needs a big [citation needed]. Concluding that the majority of people are fundamentally dishonest is a big assumption to handwave away. \nIf you want an education, cheating is stupid. Ultimately you might get a paper qualification out of it but you'll have actually learned nothing - you won't hold up long against someone who has done it properly when you actually have to apply the skills. Or if you do, then the assignments weren't that crucial to the learning in the first place.", ">\n\nMany of the things I learned in school were largely irrelevant. I couldn't use a calculator to do long division. After I passed those early elementary school years I never did long division again. I wouldn't even argue learning the long division algo is mandatory. It's nice to have learnt it I guess, but I spent way too many hours on it. I can see learning fundamentals of essay writing, etc, are great, but why can't we just evolve to learn more effective things in life? ChatGPT should be used as a tool, not viewed as a detriment.", ">\n\nIt'd suggest that the best way to educate them is to embrace ChatGBT and teach them to use it well. Your method is a bit like teaching kids to do math without calculators or accounting without excel or financial software. There is some value, but it runs out very quickly and you're at a social and competetive disadvantage for taking some archane principled approach to education that is more of a defense of \"how we used to do it\".\nI'm old enough to remember when using a word processor was sometime forbidden for reasons of fairness - that seems entirely disconnected now from doing good work and it's almost hard to envision the thought process of those who thought everything should be hand written for students. \nIsn't the kid who is amazing at utilizing tools like ChatGBT going to do much better in the world than the one who does not? Your idea of \"proper education\" would easily regress back to needing to do all subjects scrawled in dirt with sticks and grunted in non-standardized language.", ">\n\nOR, chatgpt will be a great boon to the entire education system:\nIncreased accessibility: ChatGPT and other AI-powered systems can provide education to individuals who otherwise would not have access to it, due to geographical, financial, or other barriers.\n\nPersonalized learning: ChatGPT can provide personalized education experiences based on each student's strengths, weaknesses, and learning style.\n\n24/7 availability: ChatGPT can operate 24/7, providing students with access to education at any time, anywhere, which can be especially beneficial for those with demanding schedules or for individuals in remote areas.\n\nScalability: ChatGPT can provide education to a large number of students simultaneously, which could help to address the shortage of teachers and resources in some areas.\n\nCost-effectiveness: ChatGPT can be a more cost-effective option for providing education compared to traditional methods, as it does not require physical classrooms or teachers.\n\nImproved student engagement: ChatGPT can provide interactive, engaging learning experiences that can hold students' attention and foster deeper learning.\n\n--Source: ChatGPT", ">\n\nThere a lots of places where texts and exams are “open book”. The questions have to be written differently, and the point is that you’re not testing someone’s ability to memorize, but rather their ability to understand. This is a more difficult test to write, so in theory AI could force education to improve since everyone would a virtual tutor with them at all times.", ">\n\nI'm a teacher and I've been thinking a lot about this the last couple months. Changes within the education system/curriculum/syllabus/retraining of teachers will take far too long to keep up with the ease of access to, and success of, chatgpt and AI in general. \nThe only solution moving forward both short and long term is to embrace it, there is no stopping it now anyway and if we don't all want to be out of a job in 5 years we need to - \n- demonstrate feasible/moral/ethical use of such tools\n- create more opportunities for collaborative learning/hands-on/problem solving tasks and ones that increase communication skills between peers. \nHow this applies to each individual, specific task will vary and must require a lot of creativity and trial and error, but I think relying too heavily on your department of education to handle this (or most 'boots on the ground' problems) will ultimately only degrade a students experience and ability for learning.", ">\n\nI'm with you on what you're trying to accomplish. I just don't know that it's the \"best\" way. \nFor instance, how is homework performed in school superior to trusting the kids to learn the material, which would then be tested by oral exam? And yes, I do believe that asking a student to verbally explain a topic is a really good way to gauge mastery.", ">\n\nThere is not a hope in hell that we'll go back to hand written stuff. That's not how technology works. As the music companies. There are better ways to show you know a subject, for sure, than the current out of-date ones. That's for sure. Have you ever taken an on-line exam?", ">\n\nI argue to let them use chatGPT as it will be their future. This is similar to my generations \"you'll never walk around with a calculator so learn math.\" The future children will grow into a society where work means utilizing AI tech to help them thrive. If chatGPT helps them write an essay, and it's good, it means they're using resources. I agree, however, that we should supplement this with actual reading and writing.", ">\n\nI would argue that most of time that ChatGPT and similar technologies is going to be an issue is in 8-12 grade and college.\nThis technology is not going away, and it's only going to improve. Personally I would treat it like calculators, audio books and spell check.\nTech kids how to use the technology properly. Sure it's somewhat handy to calculate numbers in your head, but having the ability to do math in your head does not give you much of an advantage in today's world and not being able to doesn't hurt you much. But it's still critical to know formulas and how to peace together algebraic statements and word problems. \nKnowing how to spell properly is less important than knowing proper word usage - most times you're writing something it can be spell-checked in real time. Sure it's \"terrible that today's kids...\" don't know how to spell... but it's not going to affect their career. \nEnter ChatGPT - same thing. Should I spend the time to write a white paper on the changing advertising landscape to alert my boss about the a potential seismic shift in advertising revenue, or should I ask ChatGPT to write it? As a user I have to understand its limits and potential copywrite issues, but even more importantly how to verify that what it writes is correct and targeting the right audience. Is data from before 2020 going to be recent and accurate enough for my thesis? How do I supplement the discussion with real-world data? \nThis is our new reality. We should be learning how to use the tools properly, not trying to figure out to lock it down (which frankly makes as much sense as locking down the use of calculators or spell check).", ">\n\nI think there are already apps in place that are able to detect AI generated text (Read this article).\nAlso, I think a better method would be to simply have a database of ChatGPT (could be encrypted) generated text and make it available to already existing software that is use to detect plagiarism (this is just an exemple amongst many)", ">\n\nFrankly I don’t think high schoolers and below should be given homework or tests at all. One learns magnitudes better through exploration as opposed to mindless repetition. Engage with these kids intellectually, make them free thinking Athenians, not bags of knowledge of which they have no idea how to use.\nDoes it not surprise anyone that we train people for over a decade in intellect yet hardly have any intellectuals?", ">\n\nI would argue that society would be better off spending resources on teaching children how to use this tool effectively. Knowing how to get the right answer is what matters in this world.", ">\n\nThen answer this: Well why learn math at all? Seriously.\nWhy learn he concept of subtraction let alone division? I could and society has argued that with the advent of digital calculators. \nYet we learn it. \nLater we use calculators to take the mundane and already known processes to the next level. We abstract away the mundane. \nAs a EE having worked and am working on products you may be using right now to read this, when I develop new silicon and chips I don’t break out Karnaugh maps and lay down circuit using a T square and stencils of gates. But I sure the hell know what I’m doing and expect the tools to do for me. \nTeaching fundamentals of reading, writing, arithmetic, essays, research are just that fundamental.", ">\n\nI’d argue that the vast majority don’t need anything beyond basic math anyways. \nGo ask the average adult if they know the quadratic equation and what it means and you’d probably be disappointed.", ">\n\nChatGPT is here to stay, you'd better advocate for teaching people how to make the most of it and use it wisely instead of pretending it doesn't exist.\nOne of my favourite teachers always told students to use the best tools there are.", ">\n\nI think it depends completely on the topic. In my field of study, it’s fairly easy to come up with term paper assignments that the bot would be useless for. \nLooking back at the paper I wrote last year, I don’t see how any current bot could have helped, as it isn’t able to read or summarize specific sources (yet?).\nAn example of the type of assignments we get is “Discuss the role of state capacity in x and x conflict in light of (specific research paper)‘s dimensions of state capacity - do your findings confirm the findings of (authors), why or why not?\nThis way of combining literature made it difficult even for me to be on top of it, as there were no sources that had attempted this exact combination - it has to be original. \nAlso, I find it’s the best way to learn, because you have to rely on your own judgement and there are no shortcuts, even asking the professor was unhelpful as he wasn’t too familiar with the details.", ">\n\nThis is not the best way.", ">\n\n\nThese homework rooms would have Internet connected computers for use but access to ChatGPT would be filtered and blocked.\n\nThis wouldn't be feasible, there's far too many roundabout ways to still access ChatGPT. Security measures like domain filtering are just unproductive games of whack-a-mole. \nEdit: removed all the other stuff I wrote, as those points have already been mentioned in previous top-level comments.", ">\n\nHomework shouldn’t be the go-to method of “education” to begin with. Imo Universities should focus on the integral part of education: the lectures. Tools like chatgpt can help student who are actually interested in a subject to learn more easily about it, but whether students actually learn anything or not from a class won’t change regardless of if work is authentic or copied from an AI\nSource: I’m a college student and have had experience in both supervised environments where we had to do work without the use of computers/phones and solely-online environments where many students cheated", ">\n\nWhile this could work, it is not necessarily the best way in terms of accessibility and of learning in general. \nFirst, students with ADHD and certain other conditions may not necessarily be the able to be productive at all times, or at the specific time they have to work on those computers, especially if those computers are not in an environment ideal to that specific person. It would also not be very feasible to give students enough time on these computers to complete the bigger assignments and essays. \nSecond, while ChatGPT is quite advanced, it simply works by looking at language patterns and often gets factual details incorrect. For example, with bigger coding problems, it tries to import modules that do not exist or call on functions that it has not defined. In literature, it cannot analyze texts on much more than a surface level. I will admit it can use secondary sources for textual analysis, however, it is unable to come up with a clear thesis on its own. \nAdditionally, take-home tests can be just as easily cheated on using a normal Google search, and usually test thinking skills rather than understanding and knowledge. \nFinally, essay-writing and other types of assignments are generally not ideal for learning as they are only one type of skill, and university professors are recognizing this. Not only do they not work for all learning styles, but they are only used so commonly because of tradition. University professors are structuring assignments around ways that are innovative enough that ChatGPT is unable to work on them. Along with requiring specific readings which the AI might not have access to, and citing of all sources (which has always been a requirement that the AI might trip up on), they are also going away from the traditional essay format into others. For example, I am studying literature, a relatively essay-heavy field, and in my past few courses I have been asked to analyze comics (which the AI cannot read), edit other people’s essays and articles (from past courses), create a mock syllabus or lesson plan with justifications for each reading, and create annotated bibliographies as a stepping stone to an essay. All of these not only require different skills and encourage different types of learning and research but are quite difficult for an AI to do. \nAll in all, while your suggestion is great, the very nature of the AI and the fact that it exists at all is perhaps a sign that the best course of action is to rework the way we think about evaluation. After all, if an evaluation is such that an AI can complete it without the ability to actually think (it works by using observed language patterns), then perhaps the evaluation is not ideal.", ">\n\nI bet teachers and people thought the same thing about calculators when they came out or 1990s internet. AI bots like chat GPT are just a tool.", ">\n\nAll this effectively does is train kids to accomplish goals of a type that do not exist in the real world in a situation they will never realistically encounter. A better goal is adjusting testing criteria to account for this.\nThere might be very specific sets of knowledge for which rote memorization is appropriate, and for those, the air gapped testing may be appropriate. But I believe those are the exception rather than the rule. By and large, teaching kids to effectively utilize the tools that will be available to them is what we should be doing.", ">\n\nImagine learning where the only books are hand written.\nThe printing press took out a huge amount of repetitive labor in the learning process.\nAI/ChatGPT stands a good chance of removing a huge amount knowledge labor which stands between an idea and the end product. Learning to use the AI to best effect the Idea->End Product Chain is more important than worrying about memorizing formulae we will likely never need to remember. \nThe effort to restrict ChatGPT is just education system worrying about their Cheese Being Moved.", ">\n\nThis just doesn't make any sense to me. You're arguing that we shouldn't allow students to use tools they would have at their disposal in a real working environment, and for what? Why wouldn't you want students to use every tool at their disposal? How exactly is handicapping them helping them to understand the coursework?\nA much better approach would be to fundamentally alter how we teach to better prepare them for the workforce. Encouraging collaboration and creative problem solving skills is much more practical and effective.", ">\n\nChatGPT may pass the Bar, but I highly doubt it will replace lawyers or other professionals. \nThe whole point of credentialing is to drive accountability. Anyone can study the law and cite precedent without a law degree. Actually representing a client in a court of law requires oversight and knowledge. ChatGPT isn't perfect - it will make mistakes from time to time. So who is responsible when it makes a mistake? When is a client (who is not familiar with the law) supposed to know that a mistake has been made on their behalf? For this reason, until ChatGPT is literally perfect you're always going to need a credentialed professional to review the output.\nFor the record, I think ChatGPT is wonderful. But it's a tool that people will use, not a full-fledged replacement for professionals. My employer (a Fortune 500 company) has already rejected its use for internal projects. IT has the website blocked.", ">\n\nThe kids that are educated without its use will fall behind in business when faced with kids that are using it to its fullest extent.\nYou've successfully made an argument for people to succeed in a test that is worthless in the real world. Its parameters don't match.", ">\n\nThe best way to educate children is to teach them skills and strategies that will actually serve them in the workplace of the future. \nChatGPT already has reached the point of replacing humans (See Buzzfeed news). If ChatGPT can take the test or do the homework then what value is that education going to be to these students? Especially older students will quickly see rote memorization as a waste of time and so yes they probably will cheat if they have the opportunity. Trying to force these things to be “learned” and prove that knowledge by brute force banning things is going to be a costly uphill battle.", ">\n\nWhat if we modify how essays are written by students, by asking them to include citations (which is something ChatGPT can’t do)?\nWe can’t stop new tools from making old methods obsolete. But we can focus on enhancing critical thinking of students in a stepwise manner. When a new tool is created, think about how you can adapt rather than resist it.", ">\n\nWhy not just train an ai to spot ai written papers?", ">\n\nWhat about gradually putting more emphasis on oral assignments?", ">\n\nEverything you said makes perfect sense...IF the goal was to teach children simply how to write the perfect standard essay. But that is a very limited way of viewing education and what its real goal is. The real goal of education is to teach children how to think. To come up with the right questions, not just the right answers. In a world where a \"good enough\" essay on literally anything can be conjured as if by magic by a machine, what's the actual value of that exercise now? For a very long time teachers have used the essay as a way to evaluate how a person thinks. Now that a machine can write it for you, we need new ways to evaluate how students think. That's the real task we are facing. Fuck the essay, just like we ditched the slide rule for calculators and later computers, etc. Tools change but the real game remains the same: Think for yourself!", ">\n\nI'd say the best way would be to accept the reality of changing technology and reevaluating the approach we have towards education as a whole.\nGranted, I'd say that's only one half of the picture: reassessing how we conceive if jobs and labour in the face of increasing automation goes along with that, and I think neither really works without the other.\nBottom line is that human labour is more and more obsolete as time goes on, so human jobs will be less and less in demand (I'd argue moving away from a capitalistic system is the right call, but even if you don't, automation is still an incentive).\nSince a large part of the incentive of our current education system is \"prepare you for a job\" I think the whole thing is going to fall short in light of these kinds of systems developing.\nTheres lots of people now who pursue knowledge as a project of passion, rather than a means to an end, and I think moving to a system that supports and encourages that kind of ambition is the way to go.", ">\n\nI disagree. We should learn to use the tools we have efficiently. Otherwise you are not learning for your career but for some professors ego", ">\n\nThat’s not “education in the era of ChatGPT.” That’s education in the era before ChatGPT while we figure out what the world with ChatGPT will look like so we have some idea of what to do with it.\nThat’s also not “educating,” that’s just “assessment.” Assessment is simply a measuring system for education. As long as you think of the acquisition of knowledge and skill as requiring knowledge regurgitation and skill performance in isolation and divorced from context/individualized, then you’re going to end up at necessitating a kind of geofenced, Luddite assessment model. The training itself predicates the assessment method. How we assess is defined by how we teach, and vice versa.\nThe best assessment method to gauge understanding is, and always has been, conversation.\nAll we need to do is pair assessment with regular conversation between qualified teacher and student to determine if personal comprehension is present. Not an interview, not an interrogation — conversation. Problem solving performance contexts are also great revealer of internalized knowledge and skill.\nChatGPT is a relative nonissue if your approach to assessment is at all human.\nIt’s only a problem when you’re trying to mechanize and dehumanized education. “Rigorous” does not mean “mechanical.” We are going to have to trust the professional, knowledge- and skill-assessing judgements of humans who already know and can do.\nEducation reverts to having more emphasis on apprenticeship and mentorship models, where the relationship itself is part of the learning process. \n(The “accountability!” cranks are gonna love that…)", ">\n\nI have a strong suspicion that discussions like this, while very interesting, will be obsolete long before any changes can actually be implemented in schools. In fact, I'm pretty sure schools will be gone entirely in the near future.\nAs of right now, you can be taught almost any subject by an exceptionally well-spoken, fast and infinitely patient teacher called GPT to a university level, if not higher. Try it right now - go ask GPT to explain the political situation that allowed Alexander the Great to conquer Persia, or ask it to explain the raytracing algorithm. If there's a part you don't understand, ask it to clarify. You'll be amazed how accessible it makes advanced topics.\nNow, how long before we have VR software with a realistic-looking AI teacher, with an AI-generated voice, who can do the same thing, but respond to students' voices and use body language and visual demonstrations? Five years?\nHow long after that before this tech is cheap, and of such high quality that sending your kids to school will be a worse education?\nNow in, say, 20 years, we could have an AI system that takes a DNA sample, analyses a students genotype to understand what subjects they will be naturally good at, what education approaches will be most successful, and continuously improves its model of the student's behavior by observing them. It crafts a decades-long education journey tailored to the individual, and accompanies them the entire way.\nTeachers, as far as they've existed so far, don't have a chance.", ">\n\nAre you trying to test someone or teach them?\nIf the latter, why do you care about cheating? This reminds me of the ol' teachers who used to restrict calculators because \"you won't always have a calculator with you.\"", ">\n\nYou forget that for 99% of homework students could just copy each other's work. Having the answers out in the world accessible is not a new problem. You just make homework a small part of the grades and you make sure students understand it's important to actually do it or they won't do well on the tests.", ">\n\nThere are so many people that can’t do the basic math examples you mentioned somewhere and they went to school at a time when there were no calculators.\nOn the other hand I was allowed to use calculators in school pretty much the moment I left elementary school and I am really quite good at math even without assistance.\nTool usage is one of humanities key features and trying to work against it instead of finding ways to incorporate new technology into school and life seems backwards.", ">\n\nIronically the teacher will have to use an AI to decipher the \"hand written\" assignments.", ">\n\nYou can't force people to learn.", ">\n\nWhat about teaching how to think rather than how to memorize? Just a thought 💭", ">\n\nThey need to get rid of homework, and have students do their work while they're at school. It's awful, they just pile it on, even if a class only has a little homework that day, there's like 6 or 7 classes so it's a nightmare for students. Seems like the only way to prevent cheating is have them do work in class, so I hope for the students sake, they do that.", ">\n\nI’ll throw my idea into the ring, though we’re still a few years off from this technology:\nWe should have students interact with AI tutors that can prompt them questions and point out details. Then they can collaborate on assignments, and the AI tutor can give feedback and suggest snippets. The AI can evaluate their work and their engagement with the material.", ">\n\nOne of Transformers main applications is in search. Ie you get a set of embeddings you can compare the pairwise distances between embedding and get a list of scores that tell you which embeddings are most similar to the input. \nEssentially tools like google are made to reduce the search space for a given query collect likely links and then rerank the most likely results. \nChatgpt basically does this in a more direct way of searching through a space of potential responses. Basically trained on a task to predict next token given the previous tokens or fill in a mask\nTransformers permeate everything students use from the recommendation algorithms on TikTok Facebook, YouTube to search systems in google. \nIn my opinion students should absolutely not be taught to fear these tools tho I do agree they be tested in constrained environments to challenge them. Current systems should not be used to learn unless you have a clear understanding and are willing to check every word and check your reasoning. Future systems will be much better though so this problem isn’t going anywhere. \nIf anything there should be a push to make these ideas more interpretable to a younger audience and give them the tools to navigate an increasingly complex market of ideas. They should be aware of the limitations and how when they use a piece of software their actions and the actions of those around them are influencing what they see next. \nIt should be used and taught with rigor. \nIt’s programming 2.0", ">\n\nDude no; \nChatGPT is the computer. \nDo you want to be the education system that banned the computer and then wondered why all the other education systems output modern tech workers, while your education system kept outputting chimney sweeps and car factory workers?", ">\n\nHW only exists to make students practice, and generally is worth less than 20% of the grade in a class. If a student chooses to use chat GPT to bypass it then that’s the student’s loss.\nUltimately exams are what schools use to evaluate a students knowledge and I don’t think that’s going to change anytime soon", ">\n\nThere are already programs that check if something was written by an AI or not. Also no student I know actually uses chatGPT for major assignments because chatGPT doesn’t know every text to ever be published so it doesn’t understand the context, and most of the time will just bullshit an answer that’s incorrect.\nEveryone I know that uses chatGPT for school do so for either for assignments so small and simple that it doesn’t make sense to quarantine, or they use it as a more advanced google that can answer questions more accurately than a search engine could, essentially just saving time.\n(most) students are using chatGPT largely as a productivity and time management tool rather than to cheat.", ">\n\nThis is like saying “in the age of calculators, the only way to ensure kids learn maths is to ban calculators in school”. If looked at correctly, chatgpt is an effect multiplier, learning just has to be rejigged to have kids learn to do things that they can’t simply ask chatgpt to do for them.", ">\n\nLess course work and more exams is the future in a world with chatGPT.", ">\n\nChatGPT will be a big no issue soon. I work in a research field and this was something we worried about last year. As of now there are multiple tools and even more being developed that catch the use of ChatGPT. There has been research published that list ChatGPT as a co-author, but for most research, and use by students, it will simply be forbidden and will easily be caught as well. The program does well but it has a particular style that can be caught. Again it will be a non-issue soon.", ">\n\nThis is like forbidding people to use a calculator because it can give you the result instant. A better way is to teach them how to use the calculator, because its here now and won't go away. Same with GPT. Children can learn way better/faster with ChatGPD if used correctly. Imaging having a private teacher for free which helps you learning every time of the day.", ">\n\nLet me ask you this. If ChatGPT could complete a students whole assignment, what would that student have learned from doing that assignment on their own that won’t simply be replaced with ChatGPT by a employer in the future?\nEven if ChatGPT doesn’t replace workers for a decade, why teach students skills that will inevitably be replaced and leave said students jobless in a decade?\nChatGPT won’t only be used in the workforce either. Linus Tech Tips has a video showing how ChatGPT can help people learn new skills and do troubleshooting on their own. If I remember correctly, he manages to completely build a pc by only strictly following what ChatGPT tells him to. It even managed to suggest the best parts for that computers specific use case. It was nowhere near perfect, but in the future it will get there.\nSince ChatGPT is such a useful tool in the workforce and at home, I think it’s crucial we teach students how to use it instead of banning them from it. Maybe students should be given a problem and tasked to use ChatGPT to find the solution or have students attempt to learn a new topic with ChatGPT. I’m not a teacher, I just thought of those examples of the top of my head. I’m sure qualified teachers could think of better assignments than me.\nI could see ChatGPT helping a mechanic diagnose an issue so the mechanic could spend more time fixing the problem rather than diagnosing and I can think of a few examples in other jobs as well where ChatGPT will help a worker be more efficient and save more time.\nI think, if anything, we’re setting students up for failure by not teaching them about these tools that will take over the workforce and help in everyday life.", ">\n\nYou’ll still have to pass a test. Relax.", ">\n\nIt “fairs” extremely well? Maybe some additional time spent observing ChatGPT could actually benefit some", ">\n\nThere’s just no way you can use ChatGPT to do all of your work for you and be successful at any moderately high level of academic pursuit. Not without learning the material yourself, and if you’ve done that, I don’t think it matters so much whether you used chatGPT and for what along the way.\nFrankly if you start our using chatGPT early in school, you won’t even be able to ask the right questions in the right way and include the necessary refinements to do more complex and demanding assignments down the road. \nAlso, tests are still a thing aren’t they? ChatGPT doesn’t help you perform in person in a monitored environment - not in a way that would allow you to skip learning the material. I don’t really get this aspect of your cmv. As long as tests don’t allow access to ChatGPT, anyone who didn’t learn the material is going to be exposed..", ">\n\nThere are already programs that detect ChatGPT writing.", ">\n\nThe children who want to cheat will always find a way to do so. It doesn’t matter how much you do to restrict it, it’ll just make them find new means of doing so. \nSource: I did GCSE’s in the UK, AP in the US. Trust, kids will cheat even in sterile environments. Especially if it’s a huge room and there are few moderators. A lot of us are scared of repercussions but those who aren’t won’t let anything stand in there way—region and proctoring be damned.", ">\n\nI require them to complete an outline first. Outline must be submitted to me before I take the essay. Google doc lets you see that they write it and when each sentence was written. It’s helped.", ">\n\nCHATGPT is a tool, and in some applications (not all), it can help students do their homework. Consider the calculator. Do students not need to learn formulas and critical thinking just because they can punch numbers into calculators?\nNo, math is still a skill that is valuable if for no other reason then because it trains your brain to solve problems.\nOne of the things that surprises me is that ChatGPT can use words and explain things to students even when a teacher is not available or when there isn’t one. we should consider this an educational opportunity rather than a disadvantage.\nThere are so many amazing things we humans can do when we simply have tools to help us. ChatGPT is no different.", ">\n\nYou can’t force people to live in the past. Chat GPT is here to stay. Education now needs to focus on teaching people how to use AI, and how to develop a skill that can’t be replaced by AI.", ">\n\nHow about getting students engaged in what they’re learning and excited to learn. Find what they’re good at and double down on it. Don’t make school a fucking quarantine bubble. Socialize, allow them to teach and learn from each other. Replace the potential for cheating with collaboration assignments in person. “Children will cheat if given the opportunity” is such horse shit. If somebody doesn’t know or wasn’t taught something well then yea they’re gonna look to get it right so they can obtain approval. How about teaching them so they won’t cheat??" ]
> How about just have the kids do a presentation on "their" report with Q&A at the end. They'll have no choice but to know the info.... which is the point.	[ "/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^\| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.", ">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?", ">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.", ">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?", ">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.", ">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?", ">\n\nYou mean a grade?", ">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication", ">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.", ">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)", ">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.", ">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.", ">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.", ">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.", ">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?", ">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.", ">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.", ">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.", ">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.", ">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.", ">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.", ">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.", ">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.", ">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.", ">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.", ">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.", ">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.", ">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.", ">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use", ">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.", ">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.", ">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.", ">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.", ">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.", ">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.", ">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.", ">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).", ">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.", ">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.", ">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.", ">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.", ">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.", ">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.", ">\n\n\nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \n\nWhy? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it. \n\nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \n\nWhy? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? \nLet's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project. \n\nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.\n\nTotally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator.", ">\n\nFor the most part, knowledge workers perform a given amount of work in a given amount of hours, and the number of them hired by a company is TotalHoursNeeded/NumHoursPerEmployee. E.g. if you have 100 manyears of work to get done in a typical year, you employ 100 people.\nChat GPT isn't going to \"replace\" people wholesale, because as you say someone still needs to supervise it. But it looks to be on track to increase the productivity of programmers (can write a first draft of code and finds many of the bugs instantly). \nSame for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones. \nSo now the TotalNeeded is decreased by some percentage, let's say 10% to start. Now you only need 90 human programmers to do that same work. With 25% efficiency gain, you need 75. With 50%, 50. Etc. \nOr take translation jobs. Today, an editor spends roughly 3 minutes per word editing machine translated text, and 1 minute per word editing human-translated text. As long as editors are more expensive per hour than first translation people, it still makes sense much of the time to hire translators, because the software isn't free. \nBut the graph of machine translation \"efficiency\" is trending towards taking the same amount of time to edit as a human translator. As soon as that's hit, there's literally no reason to hire human translators, only editors. \nAnd if the editing time goes down to 30 seconds/word because of further AI assistance to the editor, you only need half as many of those.", ">\n\nThere is currently two better solutions being worked on - one of which is already being used to some degree. \nThe first is ChatGPT developers themselves making moves to make AI written works to be identified by \"watermark\" or similar. I don't thi k this one has taken effect at all yet. \nAnother is by a separate dev team that allows teachers to use software to determine the amount of an essay, for example, that is written by AI what the likelihood of any one sentence or paragraph to have been written by AI. This allows the teachers to use discretion when determining if the student used the AI in a way that they find acceptable or not. This way instead kf running from the scary AI educators can actually utilize tyhe AI with students to help them develop their writing and other communications.", ">\n\nWhat about kids with transportation issues? When I was in school I knew kids that drove almost an hour each way to get there. I certainly couldn’t have asked my parents to drop everything to take me all the way to school so I could do my homework if I forgot. Bus schedules? Do you think schools want to waste more money by burning more gas for extra routes? I understand where you’re coming from, but for a fair amount of children—especially in poorer, more rural areas—that getting to school and back is such a delicate balancing act that such a thing would just punish them.", ">\n\nI've seen a few key things from academics testing out ChatGPT (I have not signed up myself):\n\nIt tends to produce confident, convincing nonsense. It doesn't actually understand what it's writing about, and I hear it shows.\nIt makes up citations. Real authors in the field, real journals... but made-up titles. Things like that, since, again, it doesn't actually understand citations.\n\nThis suggests that, for assignments requiring the demonstration of genuine, in-depth understanding, and not merely the ability to summarize facts, ChatGPT will fail.\nA similar example that you bring up in the comments is programming cheat sheets into calculators - but for well-designed engineering exams (including the licensure exams, at least in the US), cheat sheets are fine and often either allowed or provided. A well-designed exam tests the ability to apply principles, not knowledge of equations, so a cheat sheet is harmless, or even allows the exam to work better (since people aren't distracted with memorizing equations).", ">\n\nThere are three criticisms that I have of this approach. \n\n\nShould we not teach to the environment that we live in? Yes, education often imposes arbitrary constraints like time tests but for research and reports why not let people use and work around all resources? If you can work around chat gpt to work efficiently, then do it. You learn what it can and can’t do and how to use it effectively as a tool. \n\n\nCan chatGPT on it’s own actually write a good essay? From what I have seen it can pull together a few sources. It can generally write fluff based on other things that it has seen. But it struggles to write analysis. It can’t interrogate a source or make value judgements. It could be useful for doing some filler or providing ideas but if to do an actual report, I think it would be insufficient. \n\n\nAn assignment that can be done using chatgpt is probably boring. Here I am writing an essay for no reason other than I find it interesting to discuss this topic. Perhaps, we arent giving students interesting enough assignments or we are overloading them to the point that they don’t have the time to engage? If chatGPT turns out to be an issue maybe it’s more of an indictment of the structures and norms of education.", ">\n\n\n\nhomework in the form of essays, take home tests, coding assignments, would be completed on school grounds. \n\n\nCongratulations, you've invented the \"cram school\".\nI'd recommend reading through your post again and actually thinking about the things you've said. Because essentially, you're merely advocating for the wholesale elimination of homework and for education outside of that to remain totally unchanged. It's almost literally, \"Make the school day 30% longer\".\nMy solution to the \"problem\" of students potentially using ChatGPT to cheat on homework: I don't think you need a hilariously convoluted system of homework \"boiler rooms\" redolent of national security apparatus, that requires schools to adopt ruinously expensive and disruptive technological and administrative changes.\nIt would be sufficient if we institute a system whereby teachers are encouraged to, let's say... \"test\" their students, whether by regular written exams or by talking to them in what I'll call \"classes\", to ensure they understand the material they've been assigned to learn.\nThis method ensures that students cannot use AI homework bots to coast through classes (since they'll literally be found out the very next class), and has the added benefit of not adding three hours to every teacher's day.", ">\n\nWhat about pen and ink?", ">\n\narguably I can just copy a ChatGPT output by hand. So I think that is a first level measure, but not a complete solution.", ">\n\nIt's a better solution than prison just because the curriculum can't keep up with technology.\nWhen calculators arrived on everyone's phone and everyone's pocket did you advocate for the same solution? Unlikely, so why only now with this system?", ">\n\nWell I did and I was. When I was studying engineering in the 80s we routinely could not arrive at exams with a calculator. Even then calculators were programmable enough to allow students to write cheat sheets in calculator memory.\nIt forced us to memorize equations, principals of engineering, and independent thinking. I’m a better engineer because I did.", ">\n\nSo you're what, almost 60? And you think what's best for children is to be like you? Don't you think you may be a bit out of touch?\nAlso, your view was about K12 students, not engineering students.", ">\n\nNo. As I replied, leaning on tools as a crutch all your life will limit your ability and function as a human. For example, you could argue that basic math isn’t necessary. As matter of fact that was an argument years ago with the advent of calculators.\nHowever, humans should be able to exist and functions without a digital crutch. You should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator. You should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google. There are basic elements of duration necessary since we are all still wet grey matter.", ">\n\n\nYou should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator\n\nBut why?\n\nYou should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google\n\nAgain, why?\nWhere do you get your \"should\" from?\nI have basically all human knowledge in my hand, every equation or conversion I'll ever need day to day, even every language I'll likely ever encounter. Why shouldn't I leave my brain free to think about what it wants and to use my incredible resource as and when it's needed?\nDo you envision some Saw-like situation where you're locked to a wall and need to solve maths equations at pain of death?", ">\n\nThe less you use your brain the less likely your body is to maintain it. Our body functions through a use or lose it principle. Just look people who lose movement function/muscle just by being bedridden for a long time. Our brain is not different.\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.", ">\n\nIs wasting resources on process you can deletage outside not using your brain? You free up that space to put to what you decide is important.\n\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.\n\nThe weakest man with a gun can take out the strongest bodybuilder.", ">\n\nAnd if you decide Tik tok and Netflix are important? How do you think that will affect the cognitive ability of kids?\nI didn't mention strength nor physical strength. And even then the strongest man with a gun will probably take out the weakest man with a gun.(An actual fair comparison)", ">\n\nCouldn't chatgpt (or somesuch AI) be asked \"Hey - did you write this?\" and nip this sort of thing in the bud?", ">\n\nNo, Chat GPT doesn't remember everything it's said, the potential things it could say are huge and even if someone wrote something that Chat GPT might say, it could be a coincidence.", ">\n\nWell, strike that idea then.\nStill though - there must be some way to use AI to deal with this. \"set a thief to catch a thief\" and all that.", ">\n\nChat GPT (and most generative AIs) use GANs to generate content. \nIn laymen's terms (and extremely simplified as it's above my level of understanding) a GAN is 2 AI systems competing against each other, a creator AI that creates content and a checker AI that decides if the content was genuine or made by the other AI. \nSo any automated way to tell if it's AI generated can be built into the checker AI in future versions and the creator AI will learn to avoid whichever features the checker AI is spotting.", ">\n\nChatGPT is just another mechanism for reducing the need for labor, and it's not going away. \nChildren will need to be educated in both how to make effective use of it (for as long as it's not sufficient to completely eliminate mental labor), and also in the ethics of not using it. Always forcing them to write in airgapped places isn't going to do that, it just makes them resent it. \nAlso: essay writing on a scale needed to really learn long-form writing is not very amenable to doing in an airgapped classroom, because honestly we're not using dead-tree sources of information anymore already, so doing their research pretty much has to include doing it on line. \nBut really: laborious manual long-form essay writing is going to go the way of penmanship and looking things up in a library as an unneeded skill very quickly. We need children to adjust to that reality of the modern world rather than pretending it will go away. \nPeople are still needed (for now) to do the important part of writing essays without doing the laborious bit that ChatGPT automates anyway: deciding what to write, and editing it into a convincing and well-written form. \nForcing kids to spend a lot of time learning how to write the basic bulk part of essays is a lot like teaching them how to make buggy-whips in shop class: a pointless exercise. \nIt would be better to give them all prewritten ChatGPT essays and have them learn the limitations and capabilities.", ">\n\nIs ChatGPT really that much more effective than just grabbing things off Wikipedia? I was asking it things about elections and it was just Wikipedia from two years ago", ">\n\nThe answer is NEVER to limit technology. It’s to teach the new generation how to use that technology to achieve the same goal.\nIt’s pointless to ban computers and teach the memorization of dates in history class. It’s much more productive to teach online research skills so that if an individual needs to know the date of a particular moment in history, they can reliably Google it.\nChatGPT is the same. It renders writing essays as pointless, and it necessitates the teachers to adapt to new teaching styles, such as teaching the skills on how best to manipulate ChatGPT to return the information you need.", ">\n\nI was banned from using programming calculators when I studied engineering in the 80s during exams. It forced the students to all be on the same level playing field and forced us to actually know the equations, their applications, and the processes of whatever engineering course I was taking.\nIt made us better engineers.", ">\n\nHow does handicapping you make you a better engineer? If I put you and an engineer trained with technology in the same room together, who do you think would accomplish the task faster?", ">\n\nThe handicapped engineer, easily. The point of forcing students to actually learn the material is so that they understand how to reason about the underlying processes when they need to troubleshoot something going wrong, and understand the tradeoffs between approaches and how to select the best one for the task. \nOnce you understand things deeply you don't actually need training in doing things quickly because it's immediately intuitive how to apply a technological process to save time. The guy that leaned heavily on technology is basically fucked if he has to use a technique or software that he didn't specifically train on since he doesn't have a good foundation to abstract from. It would be more appropriate to call this person a technician.", ">\n\nThe purpose of calculators is to do the menial part of the work, not to solve whole processes. The engineer that learned with calculators likely knows how to select the right process to solve a problem, but uses the calculator to do the math faster and with fewer errors.", ">\n\nAt the college level, we’re not talking about tools to add and multiply. We’re talking about tools like Wolfram Alpha that do entire symbolic manipulations for you. If I took a calculus class and on all the assignments used Wolfram Alpha to find derivatives, do you think I would have learned anything?\nThat is what ChatGPT is doing for essays", ">\n\nThere are things called pencil and paper.", ">\n\nAs I said, this is the first line defense. However as I already commented to another user. I can simply hand copy ChatGPT output. Essentially not doing my own independent research, writing, coding, and studying.", ">\n\nWhy don't you consider that research? \nThe first source was the best. It's incredibly efficient research IMO.", ">\n\nThe idea of tool removal has always been flawed. From calculators to chat GPT and beyond. If your test is so flimsy that a simple tool invalidates it then the test is poorly built. Test shouldn't be simple busywork tasks, they should require thinking, problem solving, complex thought. If it's just a game of memorization that can be cheated by answers on a paper, you've built a bad test.\nover memorization (which is what our current school systems teach) is not only unhelpful, but also harmful. We live in an era of wikipedia being a reliable source, of vast access to tools both online and phsycial. We should be teaching kids they should do the work but with the help of those tools, not despite them.\nThe main issue with your argument is that based on what you've said, i can assume you think the current school system is a good one but so many studies have shown that at least here in the US, the school systems are some of the worst in the world. It's this memorize, ignore tools, singular focus mentality that plays such a big role.\nIf we were more creative with education, incorporating tool utilization into the learning process, we'd likely have a major improvement to our educational successes. I could go on about how the education system prefers certain kinds of students over others, and how many students are left behind simply because they don't learn like other kids and are therefore punished, but I won't. All I'll say is that more restrictions on how and what kids learn isn't going to help them learn more or better.\nand in 15 years when chat GPT is a part of daily life in every single company on the planet in some way or another (which I'm beyond certain it will be), kids who were taught how to properly utilize it will have just such a huge advantage in the workforce over those who weren't", ">\n\nRather than attempt to find ways to prevent new technology from interfering with existing pedagogy, shouldn't we review and revise pedagogy as new technology develops? \nIf a chat AI program can write these things, what is the point of having humans repeatedly do the same work? We don't expect people to use an abacus when doing math, or limit their research to what's in the library card catalogue, or require printed paper publications as essay resources; we adapted to the calculator, and to the internet and search engines. So too should we adapt to things like ChatGPT, not by trying to pretend it doesn't exist, but by finding ways to incorporate it into a more holistic approach to learning.\nRather than chain kids to an airgapped room on school grounds outside of school hours to do homework that's of dubious educational value in the first place, we should take this as an opportunity to refocus schooling on in-class engagement and direct instruction. ChatGPT and programs like it are showing us yet another thing we as humans can outsource to our technology, so why struggle to do things in a more difficult and inefficient way?", ">\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\nIn addition, AI is only as good as the data it is fed. You must still be able to do the work on your own to analyze when the AI is giving valid outputs (garbage in, garbage out). This is especially true, when AI runs the risks of being owned or operated by those with a specific agenda. Can you imagine the trouble that would result if people relied on AI to determine who to vote for, but someone was able to pay the operators to have the AI promote them?\nRelying on AI to do our work for us is a distillation of an appeal to authority fallacy on a large scale (if the AI says it, it must be true).", ">\n\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\n\nThis is something I worry about A LOT when it comes to AI. Our collective understanding of the subjects that we usually classify as \"the humanities\" is constantly evolving as we learn more, and especially as a more diverse set of people are allowed to study, research and put forth opinions and arguments.\nImagine if students were outsourcing all their history, psychology, sociology and philosophy homework to a chatbot with a 1950s understanding of those subjects.\nImagine doctors outsourcing psych patient diagnoses to a chatbot with the same understanding.\nOn an arguably less \"serious\" but still critically important moral and political topic, imagine if all/most videogame art was outsourced to an AI engine with a 1990s sensibility for female characters. Same for all kinds of representation and diversity.\nHow about politics and political science in general... ha!\nEtc, etc etc.\nIt is NOT the case that we already have discovered all the true answers to the big questions, and we can merely turn to a \"knowledge calculator\" like ChatGPT to spit out the truth.\nEven if AI can pretty accurately reflect the discourse of the day, as it is currently understood and accepted, our collective knowledge and culture will stagnate if we do not actively participate in developing it, and we will all pay the price for that.", ">\n\nThese are all moralistic arguments that ultimately don’t mean anything.", ">\n\nI would say they are more epistemic arguments, which do matter greatly in the context of education (which is what the op was referring to).", ">\n\nAre any of these things mentioned actually realistic concerns? Someone is going to train an AI bot to generate 90s female art characters with big tits?\nNo. Lol and even if someone did, who cares?", ">\n\nConsidering how many people believe obviously fake stories that have no supporting evidence (and in spite of contrary evidence), yes, I believe they are very real concerns.\nIf an AI says we should use Brawndo in farming because its got what plants crave (electrolytes), we should probably be able to justify it with reasoning beyond \"the AI says so.\"", ">\n\nWho is suggesting we do anything “just because an AI said so”? \nDo you read books and think everything in it is true “because the book says so”?", ">\n\nHow do you determine if what the book/ai said is false?\nYou would typically do it through a process of research and discovery.\nPeoples' ability to do research and discovery will be greatly diminished if we rely on AI to do those things for us (which is what the previous posters were suggesting).\nTherefore, reliance on AI will lead to us losing the ability to discern if the results of what the AI is saying is correct.", ">\n\nWhat? Lol that doesn’t make any sense at all. \nIt is not like if we use AI then all previous knowledge is simply forgotten or lost. It’s all still there.", ">\n\nForcing homework at school makes that \"not homework\", and this approach has never worked. You cant reject change, it never works. Every time there has been a game changing event, people adapted. Those who tried to reject change disappeared. Horse carriages disappeared from roads because something else replaced it. Some people supposedly rejected progress, but they are lying to themselves, they still use modern tech or services at some point.\nAnyway, the change is here, and it made essays irrelevant. Time to find another way to test people skills. \nGive it a little time though. ChatGPT costs a ginormous amount of money to run and will not stay free for long either.", ">\n\nIt's not just ChatGPT, the actual innovation is not the interface but lies in algorithms that can recreate natural language of similar quality with smaller data samples. There are also OpenSource datasets like ThePile, etc. so even if OpenAI moves to a paid model (and they will, quickly. You can already sign up to be first in line for the API), there will be other free providers.", ">\n\nHaving coded AIs, I disagree. ChatGPT is a regular trained AI. The novelty is the scale of the operation, and the fact there is a public API.\nNo one ever spent that much money on resources to run and train an AI publicly. I am pretty sure google has done something similar with user data sets to make their search engine and general ecosystem.\nI wish there was a way to have algorithms working with smaller data sets and produce similar results, but it kind of does not work that way.", ">\n\nThere are already tools to identify ChatGPT generated texts. Such tools will improve as another use of literally the same technology.\nJust as teachers submit essays for identifying plagiarism, teachers will submit essays for identifying AI-generated text. \nFurther, a focus could change from grading students on what they know to grading students' ability to ask meaningful, content-based questions about the subject. After all, knowing facts isn't particularly valuable as a skill. Integrating facts and discovering valuable questions is still something that remains a uniquely human skill. And is where people will continue to add value as AI becomes more advanced.", ">\n\nStudents have always been able to 'cheat' on work done outside the classroom, by copying or somehow getting others to do their work for them, even before the internet. Yes with more advanced modern technology it is easier but this has always been a concern. \nAs regular learning environments like supervised classrooms are already 'quarantined' in the way you descibe you are fundementally just suggesting an increase in learning hours as a supplement to homework. This has been suggested by many for various reasons but it would overall cuase more issues than it fixes. It increases work load on teachers and administrators, stretching already thin educational budgets, and forces increased mental strain on children. It would limit their ability to do other recreational and out of ciriculum activities. This would be disruptive and controlling when the quantity of teaching and learning time that children recive is already considered sufficiant for a good education.", ">\n\nHell the only thing stopping me from using ChatGPT regularly for my work now is that it's always at capacity.", ">\n\nApply tests that are hand written, doesnt matter how a person obtains the knowledge, actually learning the subject is most important thing.", ">\n\nThere is no amount of ChatGPT that could influence a good old oral exam where the teacher evaluates the understanding via a little chat.", ">\n\nSo tired of this view. We shouldn’t be fighting technology. Teach kids to use the resources they have to find answers. It’s such a waste of 12 years of school, teaching kids to memorize facts and follow rules. \nInstead, every test should be open book and reward the best answers. Ask the kids to show their work or explain their thought process so we reward understanding of a topic rather than memorization of steps or text.", ">\n\n20 years ago, there were already homework communities and learn groups. Even from the publishers of school books and with free access to tutors. Ok, they didnt do the final homework for me, but gave me a great starting point.\nBeing the kid who transcribes a wiki page was already stupid back then when others could call you out:\nBut I guess the actual problem is lack of digital literacy with teachers, they're always 5-10 years behind.", ">\n\nIf you are testing skills that can be done by free tools on the internet, then you are testing irrelevant skills.\nThe best way to educate kids is to test for skills they need, not skills they objectively don't.\nI was able to witness a couple of universities adapt to tests during quarantine, and follow reports on how the new methods would be used going forward.\nThe results where thus:\nMass offline testing is incredibly cost efficient (one examiner per ~300 students), but the tests results are a poor indicator of real world performance.\nOne to One testing is incredibly expensive, but can, when done right, test actual understanding and performance.\nBoth will be useful, of course. Mass testing is most useful when used in a way that students aren't incentivized to cheat, such as when framed as practice.", ">\n\nOne of the upsides of needing to prevent this kind of tech from cheating assignments is that teachers should focus on having students be able to do their homework at school. (As a former teacher, we were trying to do this already- no more than 15 min of homework per class). \nI dont think we need to do quite what you say. We just need to limit outside electronics and have in-person classrooms or computer labs with programs designed to be AI-proof. \nI have ALWAYS believed that cell phones/internet watches should be stored in school lockers (at most) and never allowed anywhere else on campus during the school day. If anyone needs to contact the students they contact the desk who relays their message/other need. Many schools already do this.", ">\n\n∆\nI agree with this. It would help.", ">\n\nThank you!", ">\n\nThat is utterly pointless.\nThere is no reason to limit the available tools.\nThis just reminds me of the entire \"you won't have a calculator wherever you go\" argument.\nSchool should instead put a focus on responsibly using available tools.", ">\n\nAnd if students choose to use them irresponsibly, what should schools do?\nAnd can you please define what constitutes responsible use? Because despite knowing about plagiarism, people still copy and paste from the internet. Perfect abstinence is easier than perfect moderation after all.", ">\n\nJust return to hand written essays and have more oral exams.", ">\n\n∆l\nActually of all comments having oral exams compliments my post and I agree with you. Enjoy the delta.", ">\n\nIn a Faraday cage.", ">\n\nIf children can just generate work with ChatGPT, it simply shows that children are not being taught anything valuable. (Once ChatGPT responses can be generated in almost unlimited amounts at very low cost, it necessarily means those responses are of low value)\nInstead shouldn't we be teaching children to provide more valuable outcomes that ChatGPT can't replicate?", ">\n\nBeing able to do on your own what ChatGPT does with access to an immense amount of data and processing power is valuable. The actual writing isn't valuable, obviously, but it would be silly to expect it to be. It's just a side effect of practice, you spend time making things of little or no value to build up the skills you'll need to make something that actually matters. That's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\nI think you'd be hard pressed to teach a class of children to outperform ChatGPT in writing without ever asking them to write something that could also be done via AI. What would that even look like?", ">\n\n\nThat's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\n\nIt is a problem. That is why I hated math class until 2nd year of university.", ">\n\nDid you start discovering novel math results in your second year of university, or was that just the point at which you first encountered problems you found interesting, despite the fact that someone else had already solved them before? Thinking back the class you didn't hate, do you think it should be removed if someone can construct an AI to give all the answers you gave?", ">\n\nThis is only a method for evaluating students, it doesn't do anything to educate them.\nChatgpt is potentially a great tool for education but trying to find complex ways around it for homework is pointless. When testing fact retention is required using school/university computers with no web browsing makes sense. For any other test or situation it's a tool that might be used.", ">\n\nI understand OPs concern. That said, I do not think you can create true quarantine for a multitude of reasons. \nThe biggest one is probably time. I worked through high school and university. Because I lived in the middle of nowhere it was about a 30 min drive to high school and then an hour to uni. Having to stay at these quarantine zones to complete assignments would have been hell on my schedule, car, and wallet. \nYou said it yourself, if someone is going to cheat, they will cheat. If I had to do the work in a quarantine zone, what exactly stops me from doing the actual work on my computer at home, printing it all out, and then just writing that into the computer at the quarantine zone? Unless you want to try having students write an entire essay in their hour long class? There has to be a point where they go home and then this falls apart.", ">\n\nThere are already lots of ways to cheat in homework and mostly our steps to deal with that amount to the honour system, and by university level, automated plagiarism detection (which can be quite easily avoided). The point you \"won't argue\" that people will cheat if given the opportunity is probably the actual crux of what's wrong with your suggestion and the part that needs a big [citation needed]. Concluding that the majority of people are fundamentally dishonest is a big assumption to handwave away. \nIf you want an education, cheating is stupid. Ultimately you might get a paper qualification out of it but you'll have actually learned nothing - you won't hold up long against someone who has done it properly when you actually have to apply the skills. Or if you do, then the assignments weren't that crucial to the learning in the first place.", ">\n\nMany of the things I learned in school were largely irrelevant. I couldn't use a calculator to do long division. After I passed those early elementary school years I never did long division again. I wouldn't even argue learning the long division algo is mandatory. It's nice to have learnt it I guess, but I spent way too many hours on it. I can see learning fundamentals of essay writing, etc, are great, but why can't we just evolve to learn more effective things in life? ChatGPT should be used as a tool, not viewed as a detriment.", ">\n\nIt'd suggest that the best way to educate them is to embrace ChatGBT and teach them to use it well. Your method is a bit like teaching kids to do math without calculators or accounting without excel or financial software. There is some value, but it runs out very quickly and you're at a social and competetive disadvantage for taking some archane principled approach to education that is more of a defense of \"how we used to do it\".\nI'm old enough to remember when using a word processor was sometime forbidden for reasons of fairness - that seems entirely disconnected now from doing good work and it's almost hard to envision the thought process of those who thought everything should be hand written for students. \nIsn't the kid who is amazing at utilizing tools like ChatGBT going to do much better in the world than the one who does not? Your idea of \"proper education\" would easily regress back to needing to do all subjects scrawled in dirt with sticks and grunted in non-standardized language.", ">\n\nOR, chatgpt will be a great boon to the entire education system:\nIncreased accessibility: ChatGPT and other AI-powered systems can provide education to individuals who otherwise would not have access to it, due to geographical, financial, or other barriers.\n\nPersonalized learning: ChatGPT can provide personalized education experiences based on each student's strengths, weaknesses, and learning style.\n\n24/7 availability: ChatGPT can operate 24/7, providing students with access to education at any time, anywhere, which can be especially beneficial for those with demanding schedules or for individuals in remote areas.\n\nScalability: ChatGPT can provide education to a large number of students simultaneously, which could help to address the shortage of teachers and resources in some areas.\n\nCost-effectiveness: ChatGPT can be a more cost-effective option for providing education compared to traditional methods, as it does not require physical classrooms or teachers.\n\nImproved student engagement: ChatGPT can provide interactive, engaging learning experiences that can hold students' attention and foster deeper learning.\n\n--Source: ChatGPT", ">\n\nThere a lots of places where texts and exams are “open book”. The questions have to be written differently, and the point is that you’re not testing someone’s ability to memorize, but rather their ability to understand. This is a more difficult test to write, so in theory AI could force education to improve since everyone would a virtual tutor with them at all times.", ">\n\nI'm a teacher and I've been thinking a lot about this the last couple months. Changes within the education system/curriculum/syllabus/retraining of teachers will take far too long to keep up with the ease of access to, and success of, chatgpt and AI in general. \nThe only solution moving forward both short and long term is to embrace it, there is no stopping it now anyway and if we don't all want to be out of a job in 5 years we need to - \n- demonstrate feasible/moral/ethical use of such tools\n- create more opportunities for collaborative learning/hands-on/problem solving tasks and ones that increase communication skills between peers. \nHow this applies to each individual, specific task will vary and must require a lot of creativity and trial and error, but I think relying too heavily on your department of education to handle this (or most 'boots on the ground' problems) will ultimately only degrade a students experience and ability for learning.", ">\n\nI'm with you on what you're trying to accomplish. I just don't know that it's the \"best\" way. \nFor instance, how is homework performed in school superior to trusting the kids to learn the material, which would then be tested by oral exam? And yes, I do believe that asking a student to verbally explain a topic is a really good way to gauge mastery.", ">\n\nThere is not a hope in hell that we'll go back to hand written stuff. That's not how technology works. As the music companies. There are better ways to show you know a subject, for sure, than the current out of-date ones. That's for sure. Have you ever taken an on-line exam?", ">\n\nI argue to let them use chatGPT as it will be their future. This is similar to my generations \"you'll never walk around with a calculator so learn math.\" The future children will grow into a society where work means utilizing AI tech to help them thrive. If chatGPT helps them write an essay, and it's good, it means they're using resources. I agree, however, that we should supplement this with actual reading and writing.", ">\n\nI would argue that most of time that ChatGPT and similar technologies is going to be an issue is in 8-12 grade and college.\nThis technology is not going away, and it's only going to improve. Personally I would treat it like calculators, audio books and spell check.\nTech kids how to use the technology properly. Sure it's somewhat handy to calculate numbers in your head, but having the ability to do math in your head does not give you much of an advantage in today's world and not being able to doesn't hurt you much. But it's still critical to know formulas and how to peace together algebraic statements and word problems. \nKnowing how to spell properly is less important than knowing proper word usage - most times you're writing something it can be spell-checked in real time. Sure it's \"terrible that today's kids...\" don't know how to spell... but it's not going to affect their career. \nEnter ChatGPT - same thing. Should I spend the time to write a white paper on the changing advertising landscape to alert my boss about the a potential seismic shift in advertising revenue, or should I ask ChatGPT to write it? As a user I have to understand its limits and potential copywrite issues, but even more importantly how to verify that what it writes is correct and targeting the right audience. Is data from before 2020 going to be recent and accurate enough for my thesis? How do I supplement the discussion with real-world data? \nThis is our new reality. We should be learning how to use the tools properly, not trying to figure out to lock it down (which frankly makes as much sense as locking down the use of calculators or spell check).", ">\n\nI think there are already apps in place that are able to detect AI generated text (Read this article).\nAlso, I think a better method would be to simply have a database of ChatGPT (could be encrypted) generated text and make it available to already existing software that is use to detect plagiarism (this is just an exemple amongst many)", ">\n\nFrankly I don’t think high schoolers and below should be given homework or tests at all. One learns magnitudes better through exploration as opposed to mindless repetition. Engage with these kids intellectually, make them free thinking Athenians, not bags of knowledge of which they have no idea how to use.\nDoes it not surprise anyone that we train people for over a decade in intellect yet hardly have any intellectuals?", ">\n\nI would argue that society would be better off spending resources on teaching children how to use this tool effectively. Knowing how to get the right answer is what matters in this world.", ">\n\nThen answer this: Well why learn math at all? Seriously.\nWhy learn he concept of subtraction let alone division? I could and society has argued that with the advent of digital calculators. \nYet we learn it. \nLater we use calculators to take the mundane and already known processes to the next level. We abstract away the mundane. \nAs a EE having worked and am working on products you may be using right now to read this, when I develop new silicon and chips I don’t break out Karnaugh maps and lay down circuit using a T square and stencils of gates. But I sure the hell know what I’m doing and expect the tools to do for me. \nTeaching fundamentals of reading, writing, arithmetic, essays, research are just that fundamental.", ">\n\nI’d argue that the vast majority don’t need anything beyond basic math anyways. \nGo ask the average adult if they know the quadratic equation and what it means and you’d probably be disappointed.", ">\n\nChatGPT is here to stay, you'd better advocate for teaching people how to make the most of it and use it wisely instead of pretending it doesn't exist.\nOne of my favourite teachers always told students to use the best tools there are.", ">\n\nI think it depends completely on the topic. In my field of study, it’s fairly easy to come up with term paper assignments that the bot would be useless for. \nLooking back at the paper I wrote last year, I don’t see how any current bot could have helped, as it isn’t able to read or summarize specific sources (yet?).\nAn example of the type of assignments we get is “Discuss the role of state capacity in x and x conflict in light of (specific research paper)‘s dimensions of state capacity - do your findings confirm the findings of (authors), why or why not?\nThis way of combining literature made it difficult even for me to be on top of it, as there were no sources that had attempted this exact combination - it has to be original. \nAlso, I find it’s the best way to learn, because you have to rely on your own judgement and there are no shortcuts, even asking the professor was unhelpful as he wasn’t too familiar with the details.", ">\n\nThis is not the best way.", ">\n\n\nThese homework rooms would have Internet connected computers for use but access to ChatGPT would be filtered and blocked.\n\nThis wouldn't be feasible, there's far too many roundabout ways to still access ChatGPT. Security measures like domain filtering are just unproductive games of whack-a-mole. \nEdit: removed all the other stuff I wrote, as those points have already been mentioned in previous top-level comments.", ">\n\nHomework shouldn’t be the go-to method of “education” to begin with. Imo Universities should focus on the integral part of education: the lectures. Tools like chatgpt can help student who are actually interested in a subject to learn more easily about it, but whether students actually learn anything or not from a class won’t change regardless of if work is authentic or copied from an AI\nSource: I’m a college student and have had experience in both supervised environments where we had to do work without the use of computers/phones and solely-online environments where many students cheated", ">\n\nWhile this could work, it is not necessarily the best way in terms of accessibility and of learning in general. \nFirst, students with ADHD and certain other conditions may not necessarily be the able to be productive at all times, or at the specific time they have to work on those computers, especially if those computers are not in an environment ideal to that specific person. It would also not be very feasible to give students enough time on these computers to complete the bigger assignments and essays. \nSecond, while ChatGPT is quite advanced, it simply works by looking at language patterns and often gets factual details incorrect. For example, with bigger coding problems, it tries to import modules that do not exist or call on functions that it has not defined. In literature, it cannot analyze texts on much more than a surface level. I will admit it can use secondary sources for textual analysis, however, it is unable to come up with a clear thesis on its own. \nAdditionally, take-home tests can be just as easily cheated on using a normal Google search, and usually test thinking skills rather than understanding and knowledge. \nFinally, essay-writing and other types of assignments are generally not ideal for learning as they are only one type of skill, and university professors are recognizing this. Not only do they not work for all learning styles, but they are only used so commonly because of tradition. University professors are structuring assignments around ways that are innovative enough that ChatGPT is unable to work on them. Along with requiring specific readings which the AI might not have access to, and citing of all sources (which has always been a requirement that the AI might trip up on), they are also going away from the traditional essay format into others. For example, I am studying literature, a relatively essay-heavy field, and in my past few courses I have been asked to analyze comics (which the AI cannot read), edit other people’s essays and articles (from past courses), create a mock syllabus or lesson plan with justifications for each reading, and create annotated bibliographies as a stepping stone to an essay. All of these not only require different skills and encourage different types of learning and research but are quite difficult for an AI to do. \nAll in all, while your suggestion is great, the very nature of the AI and the fact that it exists at all is perhaps a sign that the best course of action is to rework the way we think about evaluation. After all, if an evaluation is such that an AI can complete it without the ability to actually think (it works by using observed language patterns), then perhaps the evaluation is not ideal.", ">\n\nI bet teachers and people thought the same thing about calculators when they came out or 1990s internet. AI bots like chat GPT are just a tool.", ">\n\nAll this effectively does is train kids to accomplish goals of a type that do not exist in the real world in a situation they will never realistically encounter. A better goal is adjusting testing criteria to account for this.\nThere might be very specific sets of knowledge for which rote memorization is appropriate, and for those, the air gapped testing may be appropriate. But I believe those are the exception rather than the rule. By and large, teaching kids to effectively utilize the tools that will be available to them is what we should be doing.", ">\n\nImagine learning where the only books are hand written.\nThe printing press took out a huge amount of repetitive labor in the learning process.\nAI/ChatGPT stands a good chance of removing a huge amount knowledge labor which stands between an idea and the end product. Learning to use the AI to best effect the Idea->End Product Chain is more important than worrying about memorizing formulae we will likely never need to remember. \nThe effort to restrict ChatGPT is just education system worrying about their Cheese Being Moved.", ">\n\nThis just doesn't make any sense to me. You're arguing that we shouldn't allow students to use tools they would have at their disposal in a real working environment, and for what? Why wouldn't you want students to use every tool at their disposal? How exactly is handicapping them helping them to understand the coursework?\nA much better approach would be to fundamentally alter how we teach to better prepare them for the workforce. Encouraging collaboration and creative problem solving skills is much more practical and effective.", ">\n\nChatGPT may pass the Bar, but I highly doubt it will replace lawyers or other professionals. \nThe whole point of credentialing is to drive accountability. Anyone can study the law and cite precedent without a law degree. Actually representing a client in a court of law requires oversight and knowledge. ChatGPT isn't perfect - it will make mistakes from time to time. So who is responsible when it makes a mistake? When is a client (who is not familiar with the law) supposed to know that a mistake has been made on their behalf? For this reason, until ChatGPT is literally perfect you're always going to need a credentialed professional to review the output.\nFor the record, I think ChatGPT is wonderful. But it's a tool that people will use, not a full-fledged replacement for professionals. My employer (a Fortune 500 company) has already rejected its use for internal projects. IT has the website blocked.", ">\n\nThe kids that are educated without its use will fall behind in business when faced with kids that are using it to its fullest extent.\nYou've successfully made an argument for people to succeed in a test that is worthless in the real world. Its parameters don't match.", ">\n\nThe best way to educate children is to teach them skills and strategies that will actually serve them in the workplace of the future. \nChatGPT already has reached the point of replacing humans (See Buzzfeed news). If ChatGPT can take the test or do the homework then what value is that education going to be to these students? Especially older students will quickly see rote memorization as a waste of time and so yes they probably will cheat if they have the opportunity. Trying to force these things to be “learned” and prove that knowledge by brute force banning things is going to be a costly uphill battle.", ">\n\nWhat if we modify how essays are written by students, by asking them to include citations (which is something ChatGPT can’t do)?\nWe can’t stop new tools from making old methods obsolete. But we can focus on enhancing critical thinking of students in a stepwise manner. When a new tool is created, think about how you can adapt rather than resist it.", ">\n\nWhy not just train an ai to spot ai written papers?", ">\n\nWhat about gradually putting more emphasis on oral assignments?", ">\n\nEverything you said makes perfect sense...IF the goal was to teach children simply how to write the perfect standard essay. But that is a very limited way of viewing education and what its real goal is. The real goal of education is to teach children how to think. To come up with the right questions, not just the right answers. In a world where a \"good enough\" essay on literally anything can be conjured as if by magic by a machine, what's the actual value of that exercise now? For a very long time teachers have used the essay as a way to evaluate how a person thinks. Now that a machine can write it for you, we need new ways to evaluate how students think. That's the real task we are facing. Fuck the essay, just like we ditched the slide rule for calculators and later computers, etc. Tools change but the real game remains the same: Think for yourself!", ">\n\nI'd say the best way would be to accept the reality of changing technology and reevaluating the approach we have towards education as a whole.\nGranted, I'd say that's only one half of the picture: reassessing how we conceive if jobs and labour in the face of increasing automation goes along with that, and I think neither really works without the other.\nBottom line is that human labour is more and more obsolete as time goes on, so human jobs will be less and less in demand (I'd argue moving away from a capitalistic system is the right call, but even if you don't, automation is still an incentive).\nSince a large part of the incentive of our current education system is \"prepare you for a job\" I think the whole thing is going to fall short in light of these kinds of systems developing.\nTheres lots of people now who pursue knowledge as a project of passion, rather than a means to an end, and I think moving to a system that supports and encourages that kind of ambition is the way to go.", ">\n\nI disagree. We should learn to use the tools we have efficiently. Otherwise you are not learning for your career but for some professors ego", ">\n\nThat’s not “education in the era of ChatGPT.” That’s education in the era before ChatGPT while we figure out what the world with ChatGPT will look like so we have some idea of what to do with it.\nThat’s also not “educating,” that’s just “assessment.” Assessment is simply a measuring system for education. As long as you think of the acquisition of knowledge and skill as requiring knowledge regurgitation and skill performance in isolation and divorced from context/individualized, then you’re going to end up at necessitating a kind of geofenced, Luddite assessment model. The training itself predicates the assessment method. How we assess is defined by how we teach, and vice versa.\nThe best assessment method to gauge understanding is, and always has been, conversation.\nAll we need to do is pair assessment with regular conversation between qualified teacher and student to determine if personal comprehension is present. Not an interview, not an interrogation — conversation. Problem solving performance contexts are also great revealer of internalized knowledge and skill.\nChatGPT is a relative nonissue if your approach to assessment is at all human.\nIt’s only a problem when you’re trying to mechanize and dehumanized education. “Rigorous” does not mean “mechanical.” We are going to have to trust the professional, knowledge- and skill-assessing judgements of humans who already know and can do.\nEducation reverts to having more emphasis on apprenticeship and mentorship models, where the relationship itself is part of the learning process. \n(The “accountability!” cranks are gonna love that…)", ">\n\nI have a strong suspicion that discussions like this, while very interesting, will be obsolete long before any changes can actually be implemented in schools. In fact, I'm pretty sure schools will be gone entirely in the near future.\nAs of right now, you can be taught almost any subject by an exceptionally well-spoken, fast and infinitely patient teacher called GPT to a university level, if not higher. Try it right now - go ask GPT to explain the political situation that allowed Alexander the Great to conquer Persia, or ask it to explain the raytracing algorithm. If there's a part you don't understand, ask it to clarify. You'll be amazed how accessible it makes advanced topics.\nNow, how long before we have VR software with a realistic-looking AI teacher, with an AI-generated voice, who can do the same thing, but respond to students' voices and use body language and visual demonstrations? Five years?\nHow long after that before this tech is cheap, and of such high quality that sending your kids to school will be a worse education?\nNow in, say, 20 years, we could have an AI system that takes a DNA sample, analyses a students genotype to understand what subjects they will be naturally good at, what education approaches will be most successful, and continuously improves its model of the student's behavior by observing them. It crafts a decades-long education journey tailored to the individual, and accompanies them the entire way.\nTeachers, as far as they've existed so far, don't have a chance.", ">\n\nAre you trying to test someone or teach them?\nIf the latter, why do you care about cheating? This reminds me of the ol' teachers who used to restrict calculators because \"you won't always have a calculator with you.\"", ">\n\nYou forget that for 99% of homework students could just copy each other's work. Having the answers out in the world accessible is not a new problem. You just make homework a small part of the grades and you make sure students understand it's important to actually do it or they won't do well on the tests.", ">\n\nThere are so many people that can’t do the basic math examples you mentioned somewhere and they went to school at a time when there were no calculators.\nOn the other hand I was allowed to use calculators in school pretty much the moment I left elementary school and I am really quite good at math even without assistance.\nTool usage is one of humanities key features and trying to work against it instead of finding ways to incorporate new technology into school and life seems backwards.", ">\n\nIronically the teacher will have to use an AI to decipher the \"hand written\" assignments.", ">\n\nYou can't force people to learn.", ">\n\nWhat about teaching how to think rather than how to memorize? Just a thought 💭", ">\n\nThey need to get rid of homework, and have students do their work while they're at school. It's awful, they just pile it on, even if a class only has a little homework that day, there's like 6 or 7 classes so it's a nightmare for students. Seems like the only way to prevent cheating is have them do work in class, so I hope for the students sake, they do that.", ">\n\nI’ll throw my idea into the ring, though we’re still a few years off from this technology:\nWe should have students interact with AI tutors that can prompt them questions and point out details. Then they can collaborate on assignments, and the AI tutor can give feedback and suggest snippets. The AI can evaluate their work and their engagement with the material.", ">\n\nOne of Transformers main applications is in search. Ie you get a set of embeddings you can compare the pairwise distances between embedding and get a list of scores that tell you which embeddings are most similar to the input. \nEssentially tools like google are made to reduce the search space for a given query collect likely links and then rerank the most likely results. \nChatgpt basically does this in a more direct way of searching through a space of potential responses. Basically trained on a task to predict next token given the previous tokens or fill in a mask\nTransformers permeate everything students use from the recommendation algorithms on TikTok Facebook, YouTube to search systems in google. \nIn my opinion students should absolutely not be taught to fear these tools tho I do agree they be tested in constrained environments to challenge them. Current systems should not be used to learn unless you have a clear understanding and are willing to check every word and check your reasoning. Future systems will be much better though so this problem isn’t going anywhere. \nIf anything there should be a push to make these ideas more interpretable to a younger audience and give them the tools to navigate an increasingly complex market of ideas. They should be aware of the limitations and how when they use a piece of software their actions and the actions of those around them are influencing what they see next. \nIt should be used and taught with rigor. \nIt’s programming 2.0", ">\n\nDude no; \nChatGPT is the computer. \nDo you want to be the education system that banned the computer and then wondered why all the other education systems output modern tech workers, while your education system kept outputting chimney sweeps and car factory workers?", ">\n\nHW only exists to make students practice, and generally is worth less than 20% of the grade in a class. If a student chooses to use chat GPT to bypass it then that’s the student’s loss.\nUltimately exams are what schools use to evaluate a students knowledge and I don’t think that’s going to change anytime soon", ">\n\nThere are already programs that check if something was written by an AI or not. Also no student I know actually uses chatGPT for major assignments because chatGPT doesn’t know every text to ever be published so it doesn’t understand the context, and most of the time will just bullshit an answer that’s incorrect.\nEveryone I know that uses chatGPT for school do so for either for assignments so small and simple that it doesn’t make sense to quarantine, or they use it as a more advanced google that can answer questions more accurately than a search engine could, essentially just saving time.\n(most) students are using chatGPT largely as a productivity and time management tool rather than to cheat.", ">\n\nThis is like saying “in the age of calculators, the only way to ensure kids learn maths is to ban calculators in school”. If looked at correctly, chatgpt is an effect multiplier, learning just has to be rejigged to have kids learn to do things that they can’t simply ask chatgpt to do for them.", ">\n\nLess course work and more exams is the future in a world with chatGPT.", ">\n\nChatGPT will be a big no issue soon. I work in a research field and this was something we worried about last year. As of now there are multiple tools and even more being developed that catch the use of ChatGPT. There has been research published that list ChatGPT as a co-author, but for most research, and use by students, it will simply be forbidden and will easily be caught as well. The program does well but it has a particular style that can be caught. Again it will be a non-issue soon.", ">\n\nThis is like forbidding people to use a calculator because it can give you the result instant. A better way is to teach them how to use the calculator, because its here now and won't go away. Same with GPT. Children can learn way better/faster with ChatGPD if used correctly. Imaging having a private teacher for free which helps you learning every time of the day.", ">\n\nLet me ask you this. If ChatGPT could complete a students whole assignment, what would that student have learned from doing that assignment on their own that won’t simply be replaced with ChatGPT by a employer in the future?\nEven if ChatGPT doesn’t replace workers for a decade, why teach students skills that will inevitably be replaced and leave said students jobless in a decade?\nChatGPT won’t only be used in the workforce either. Linus Tech Tips has a video showing how ChatGPT can help people learn new skills and do troubleshooting on their own. If I remember correctly, he manages to completely build a pc by only strictly following what ChatGPT tells him to. It even managed to suggest the best parts for that computers specific use case. It was nowhere near perfect, but in the future it will get there.\nSince ChatGPT is such a useful tool in the workforce and at home, I think it’s crucial we teach students how to use it instead of banning them from it. Maybe students should be given a problem and tasked to use ChatGPT to find the solution or have students attempt to learn a new topic with ChatGPT. I’m not a teacher, I just thought of those examples of the top of my head. I’m sure qualified teachers could think of better assignments than me.\nI could see ChatGPT helping a mechanic diagnose an issue so the mechanic could spend more time fixing the problem rather than diagnosing and I can think of a few examples in other jobs as well where ChatGPT will help a worker be more efficient and save more time.\nI think, if anything, we’re setting students up for failure by not teaching them about these tools that will take over the workforce and help in everyday life.", ">\n\nYou’ll still have to pass a test. Relax.", ">\n\nIt “fairs” extremely well? Maybe some additional time spent observing ChatGPT could actually benefit some", ">\n\nThere’s just no way you can use ChatGPT to do all of your work for you and be successful at any moderately high level of academic pursuit. Not without learning the material yourself, and if you’ve done that, I don’t think it matters so much whether you used chatGPT and for what along the way.\nFrankly if you start our using chatGPT early in school, you won’t even be able to ask the right questions in the right way and include the necessary refinements to do more complex and demanding assignments down the road. \nAlso, tests are still a thing aren’t they? ChatGPT doesn’t help you perform in person in a monitored environment - not in a way that would allow you to skip learning the material. I don’t really get this aspect of your cmv. As long as tests don’t allow access to ChatGPT, anyone who didn’t learn the material is going to be exposed..", ">\n\nThere are already programs that detect ChatGPT writing.", ">\n\nThe children who want to cheat will always find a way to do so. It doesn’t matter how much you do to restrict it, it’ll just make them find new means of doing so. \nSource: I did GCSE’s in the UK, AP in the US. Trust, kids will cheat even in sterile environments. Especially if it’s a huge room and there are few moderators. A lot of us are scared of repercussions but those who aren’t won’t let anything stand in there way—region and proctoring be damned.", ">\n\nI require them to complete an outline first. Outline must be submitted to me before I take the essay. Google doc lets you see that they write it and when each sentence was written. It’s helped.", ">\n\nCHATGPT is a tool, and in some applications (not all), it can help students do their homework. Consider the calculator. Do students not need to learn formulas and critical thinking just because they can punch numbers into calculators?\nNo, math is still a skill that is valuable if for no other reason then because it trains your brain to solve problems.\nOne of the things that surprises me is that ChatGPT can use words and explain things to students even when a teacher is not available or when there isn’t one. we should consider this an educational opportunity rather than a disadvantage.\nThere are so many amazing things we humans can do when we simply have tools to help us. ChatGPT is no different.", ">\n\nYou can’t force people to live in the past. Chat GPT is here to stay. Education now needs to focus on teaching people how to use AI, and how to develop a skill that can’t be replaced by AI.", ">\n\nHow about getting students engaged in what they’re learning and excited to learn. Find what they’re good at and double down on it. Don’t make school a fucking quarantine bubble. Socialize, allow them to teach and learn from each other. Replace the potential for cheating with collaboration assignments in person. “Children will cheat if given the opportunity” is such horse shit. If somebody doesn’t know or wasn’t taught something well then yea they’re gonna look to get it right so they can obtain approval. How about teaching them so they won’t cheat??", ">\n\nThats not it. I don’t have an answer for you, but thats not it." ]
> Well, making an AI that detects if something was made by an AI shouldnt be hard	[ "/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^\| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.", ">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?", ">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.", ">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?", ">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.", ">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?", ">\n\nYou mean a grade?", ">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication", ">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.", ">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)", ">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.", ">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.", ">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.", ">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.", ">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?", ">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.", ">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.", ">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.", ">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.", ">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.", ">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.", ">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.", ">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.", ">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.", ">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.", ">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.", ">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.", ">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.", ">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use", ">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.", ">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.", ">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.", ">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.", ">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.", ">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.", ">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.", ">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).", ">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.", ">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.", ">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.", ">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.", ">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.", ">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.", ">\n\n\nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \n\nWhy? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it. \n\nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \n\nWhy? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? \nLet's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project. \n\nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.\n\nTotally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator.", ">\n\nFor the most part, knowledge workers perform a given amount of work in a given amount of hours, and the number of them hired by a company is TotalHoursNeeded/NumHoursPerEmployee. E.g. if you have 100 manyears of work to get done in a typical year, you employ 100 people.\nChat GPT isn't going to \"replace\" people wholesale, because as you say someone still needs to supervise it. But it looks to be on track to increase the productivity of programmers (can write a first draft of code and finds many of the bugs instantly). \nSame for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones. \nSo now the TotalNeeded is decreased by some percentage, let's say 10% to start. Now you only need 90 human programmers to do that same work. With 25% efficiency gain, you need 75. With 50%, 50. Etc. \nOr take translation jobs. Today, an editor spends roughly 3 minutes per word editing machine translated text, and 1 minute per word editing human-translated text. As long as editors are more expensive per hour than first translation people, it still makes sense much of the time to hire translators, because the software isn't free. \nBut the graph of machine translation \"efficiency\" is trending towards taking the same amount of time to edit as a human translator. As soon as that's hit, there's literally no reason to hire human translators, only editors. \nAnd if the editing time goes down to 30 seconds/word because of further AI assistance to the editor, you only need half as many of those.", ">\n\nThere is currently two better solutions being worked on - one of which is already being used to some degree. \nThe first is ChatGPT developers themselves making moves to make AI written works to be identified by \"watermark\" or similar. I don't thi k this one has taken effect at all yet. \nAnother is by a separate dev team that allows teachers to use software to determine the amount of an essay, for example, that is written by AI what the likelihood of any one sentence or paragraph to have been written by AI. This allows the teachers to use discretion when determining if the student used the AI in a way that they find acceptable or not. This way instead kf running from the scary AI educators can actually utilize tyhe AI with students to help them develop their writing and other communications.", ">\n\nWhat about kids with transportation issues? When I was in school I knew kids that drove almost an hour each way to get there. I certainly couldn’t have asked my parents to drop everything to take me all the way to school so I could do my homework if I forgot. Bus schedules? Do you think schools want to waste more money by burning more gas for extra routes? I understand where you’re coming from, but for a fair amount of children—especially in poorer, more rural areas—that getting to school and back is such a delicate balancing act that such a thing would just punish them.", ">\n\nI've seen a few key things from academics testing out ChatGPT (I have not signed up myself):\n\nIt tends to produce confident, convincing nonsense. It doesn't actually understand what it's writing about, and I hear it shows.\nIt makes up citations. Real authors in the field, real journals... but made-up titles. Things like that, since, again, it doesn't actually understand citations.\n\nThis suggests that, for assignments requiring the demonstration of genuine, in-depth understanding, and not merely the ability to summarize facts, ChatGPT will fail.\nA similar example that you bring up in the comments is programming cheat sheets into calculators - but for well-designed engineering exams (including the licensure exams, at least in the US), cheat sheets are fine and often either allowed or provided. A well-designed exam tests the ability to apply principles, not knowledge of equations, so a cheat sheet is harmless, or even allows the exam to work better (since people aren't distracted with memorizing equations).", ">\n\nThere are three criticisms that I have of this approach. \n\n\nShould we not teach to the environment that we live in? Yes, education often imposes arbitrary constraints like time tests but for research and reports why not let people use and work around all resources? If you can work around chat gpt to work efficiently, then do it. You learn what it can and can’t do and how to use it effectively as a tool. \n\n\nCan chatGPT on it’s own actually write a good essay? From what I have seen it can pull together a few sources. It can generally write fluff based on other things that it has seen. But it struggles to write analysis. It can’t interrogate a source or make value judgements. It could be useful for doing some filler or providing ideas but if to do an actual report, I think it would be insufficient. \n\n\nAn assignment that can be done using chatgpt is probably boring. Here I am writing an essay for no reason other than I find it interesting to discuss this topic. Perhaps, we arent giving students interesting enough assignments or we are overloading them to the point that they don’t have the time to engage? If chatGPT turns out to be an issue maybe it’s more of an indictment of the structures and norms of education.", ">\n\n\n\nhomework in the form of essays, take home tests, coding assignments, would be completed on school grounds. \n\n\nCongratulations, you've invented the \"cram school\".\nI'd recommend reading through your post again and actually thinking about the things you've said. Because essentially, you're merely advocating for the wholesale elimination of homework and for education outside of that to remain totally unchanged. It's almost literally, \"Make the school day 30% longer\".\nMy solution to the \"problem\" of students potentially using ChatGPT to cheat on homework: I don't think you need a hilariously convoluted system of homework \"boiler rooms\" redolent of national security apparatus, that requires schools to adopt ruinously expensive and disruptive technological and administrative changes.\nIt would be sufficient if we institute a system whereby teachers are encouraged to, let's say... \"test\" their students, whether by regular written exams or by talking to them in what I'll call \"classes\", to ensure they understand the material they've been assigned to learn.\nThis method ensures that students cannot use AI homework bots to coast through classes (since they'll literally be found out the very next class), and has the added benefit of not adding three hours to every teacher's day.", ">\n\nWhat about pen and ink?", ">\n\narguably I can just copy a ChatGPT output by hand. So I think that is a first level measure, but not a complete solution.", ">\n\nIt's a better solution than prison just because the curriculum can't keep up with technology.\nWhen calculators arrived on everyone's phone and everyone's pocket did you advocate for the same solution? Unlikely, so why only now with this system?", ">\n\nWell I did and I was. When I was studying engineering in the 80s we routinely could not arrive at exams with a calculator. Even then calculators were programmable enough to allow students to write cheat sheets in calculator memory.\nIt forced us to memorize equations, principals of engineering, and independent thinking. I’m a better engineer because I did.", ">\n\nSo you're what, almost 60? And you think what's best for children is to be like you? Don't you think you may be a bit out of touch?\nAlso, your view was about K12 students, not engineering students.", ">\n\nNo. As I replied, leaning on tools as a crutch all your life will limit your ability and function as a human. For example, you could argue that basic math isn’t necessary. As matter of fact that was an argument years ago with the advent of calculators.\nHowever, humans should be able to exist and functions without a digital crutch. You should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator. You should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google. There are basic elements of duration necessary since we are all still wet grey matter.", ">\n\n\nYou should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator\n\nBut why?\n\nYou should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google\n\nAgain, why?\nWhere do you get your \"should\" from?\nI have basically all human knowledge in my hand, every equation or conversion I'll ever need day to day, even every language I'll likely ever encounter. Why shouldn't I leave my brain free to think about what it wants and to use my incredible resource as and when it's needed?\nDo you envision some Saw-like situation where you're locked to a wall and need to solve maths equations at pain of death?", ">\n\nThe less you use your brain the less likely your body is to maintain it. Our body functions through a use or lose it principle. Just look people who lose movement function/muscle just by being bedridden for a long time. Our brain is not different.\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.", ">\n\nIs wasting resources on process you can deletage outside not using your brain? You free up that space to put to what you decide is important.\n\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.\n\nThe weakest man with a gun can take out the strongest bodybuilder.", ">\n\nAnd if you decide Tik tok and Netflix are important? How do you think that will affect the cognitive ability of kids?\nI didn't mention strength nor physical strength. And even then the strongest man with a gun will probably take out the weakest man with a gun.(An actual fair comparison)", ">\n\nCouldn't chatgpt (or somesuch AI) be asked \"Hey - did you write this?\" and nip this sort of thing in the bud?", ">\n\nNo, Chat GPT doesn't remember everything it's said, the potential things it could say are huge and even if someone wrote something that Chat GPT might say, it could be a coincidence.", ">\n\nWell, strike that idea then.\nStill though - there must be some way to use AI to deal with this. \"set a thief to catch a thief\" and all that.", ">\n\nChat GPT (and most generative AIs) use GANs to generate content. \nIn laymen's terms (and extremely simplified as it's above my level of understanding) a GAN is 2 AI systems competing against each other, a creator AI that creates content and a checker AI that decides if the content was genuine or made by the other AI. \nSo any automated way to tell if it's AI generated can be built into the checker AI in future versions and the creator AI will learn to avoid whichever features the checker AI is spotting.", ">\n\nChatGPT is just another mechanism for reducing the need for labor, and it's not going away. \nChildren will need to be educated in both how to make effective use of it (for as long as it's not sufficient to completely eliminate mental labor), and also in the ethics of not using it. Always forcing them to write in airgapped places isn't going to do that, it just makes them resent it. \nAlso: essay writing on a scale needed to really learn long-form writing is not very amenable to doing in an airgapped classroom, because honestly we're not using dead-tree sources of information anymore already, so doing their research pretty much has to include doing it on line. \nBut really: laborious manual long-form essay writing is going to go the way of penmanship and looking things up in a library as an unneeded skill very quickly. We need children to adjust to that reality of the modern world rather than pretending it will go away. \nPeople are still needed (for now) to do the important part of writing essays without doing the laborious bit that ChatGPT automates anyway: deciding what to write, and editing it into a convincing and well-written form. \nForcing kids to spend a lot of time learning how to write the basic bulk part of essays is a lot like teaching them how to make buggy-whips in shop class: a pointless exercise. \nIt would be better to give them all prewritten ChatGPT essays and have them learn the limitations and capabilities.", ">\n\nIs ChatGPT really that much more effective than just grabbing things off Wikipedia? I was asking it things about elections and it was just Wikipedia from two years ago", ">\n\nThe answer is NEVER to limit technology. It’s to teach the new generation how to use that technology to achieve the same goal.\nIt’s pointless to ban computers and teach the memorization of dates in history class. It’s much more productive to teach online research skills so that if an individual needs to know the date of a particular moment in history, they can reliably Google it.\nChatGPT is the same. It renders writing essays as pointless, and it necessitates the teachers to adapt to new teaching styles, such as teaching the skills on how best to manipulate ChatGPT to return the information you need.", ">\n\nI was banned from using programming calculators when I studied engineering in the 80s during exams. It forced the students to all be on the same level playing field and forced us to actually know the equations, their applications, and the processes of whatever engineering course I was taking.\nIt made us better engineers.", ">\n\nHow does handicapping you make you a better engineer? If I put you and an engineer trained with technology in the same room together, who do you think would accomplish the task faster?", ">\n\nThe handicapped engineer, easily. The point of forcing students to actually learn the material is so that they understand how to reason about the underlying processes when they need to troubleshoot something going wrong, and understand the tradeoffs between approaches and how to select the best one for the task. \nOnce you understand things deeply you don't actually need training in doing things quickly because it's immediately intuitive how to apply a technological process to save time. The guy that leaned heavily on technology is basically fucked if he has to use a technique or software that he didn't specifically train on since he doesn't have a good foundation to abstract from. It would be more appropriate to call this person a technician.", ">\n\nThe purpose of calculators is to do the menial part of the work, not to solve whole processes. The engineer that learned with calculators likely knows how to select the right process to solve a problem, but uses the calculator to do the math faster and with fewer errors.", ">\n\nAt the college level, we’re not talking about tools to add and multiply. We’re talking about tools like Wolfram Alpha that do entire symbolic manipulations for you. If I took a calculus class and on all the assignments used Wolfram Alpha to find derivatives, do you think I would have learned anything?\nThat is what ChatGPT is doing for essays", ">\n\nThere are things called pencil and paper.", ">\n\nAs I said, this is the first line defense. However as I already commented to another user. I can simply hand copy ChatGPT output. Essentially not doing my own independent research, writing, coding, and studying.", ">\n\nWhy don't you consider that research? \nThe first source was the best. It's incredibly efficient research IMO.", ">\n\nThe idea of tool removal has always been flawed. From calculators to chat GPT and beyond. If your test is so flimsy that a simple tool invalidates it then the test is poorly built. Test shouldn't be simple busywork tasks, they should require thinking, problem solving, complex thought. If it's just a game of memorization that can be cheated by answers on a paper, you've built a bad test.\nover memorization (which is what our current school systems teach) is not only unhelpful, but also harmful. We live in an era of wikipedia being a reliable source, of vast access to tools both online and phsycial. We should be teaching kids they should do the work but with the help of those tools, not despite them.\nThe main issue with your argument is that based on what you've said, i can assume you think the current school system is a good one but so many studies have shown that at least here in the US, the school systems are some of the worst in the world. It's this memorize, ignore tools, singular focus mentality that plays such a big role.\nIf we were more creative with education, incorporating tool utilization into the learning process, we'd likely have a major improvement to our educational successes. I could go on about how the education system prefers certain kinds of students over others, and how many students are left behind simply because they don't learn like other kids and are therefore punished, but I won't. All I'll say is that more restrictions on how and what kids learn isn't going to help them learn more or better.\nand in 15 years when chat GPT is a part of daily life in every single company on the planet in some way or another (which I'm beyond certain it will be), kids who were taught how to properly utilize it will have just such a huge advantage in the workforce over those who weren't", ">\n\nRather than attempt to find ways to prevent new technology from interfering with existing pedagogy, shouldn't we review and revise pedagogy as new technology develops? \nIf a chat AI program can write these things, what is the point of having humans repeatedly do the same work? We don't expect people to use an abacus when doing math, or limit their research to what's in the library card catalogue, or require printed paper publications as essay resources; we adapted to the calculator, and to the internet and search engines. So too should we adapt to things like ChatGPT, not by trying to pretend it doesn't exist, but by finding ways to incorporate it into a more holistic approach to learning.\nRather than chain kids to an airgapped room on school grounds outside of school hours to do homework that's of dubious educational value in the first place, we should take this as an opportunity to refocus schooling on in-class engagement and direct instruction. ChatGPT and programs like it are showing us yet another thing we as humans can outsource to our technology, so why struggle to do things in a more difficult and inefficient way?", ">\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\nIn addition, AI is only as good as the data it is fed. You must still be able to do the work on your own to analyze when the AI is giving valid outputs (garbage in, garbage out). This is especially true, when AI runs the risks of being owned or operated by those with a specific agenda. Can you imagine the trouble that would result if people relied on AI to determine who to vote for, but someone was able to pay the operators to have the AI promote them?\nRelying on AI to do our work for us is a distillation of an appeal to authority fallacy on a large scale (if the AI says it, it must be true).", ">\n\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\n\nThis is something I worry about A LOT when it comes to AI. Our collective understanding of the subjects that we usually classify as \"the humanities\" is constantly evolving as we learn more, and especially as a more diverse set of people are allowed to study, research and put forth opinions and arguments.\nImagine if students were outsourcing all their history, psychology, sociology and philosophy homework to a chatbot with a 1950s understanding of those subjects.\nImagine doctors outsourcing psych patient diagnoses to a chatbot with the same understanding.\nOn an arguably less \"serious\" but still critically important moral and political topic, imagine if all/most videogame art was outsourced to an AI engine with a 1990s sensibility for female characters. Same for all kinds of representation and diversity.\nHow about politics and political science in general... ha!\nEtc, etc etc.\nIt is NOT the case that we already have discovered all the true answers to the big questions, and we can merely turn to a \"knowledge calculator\" like ChatGPT to spit out the truth.\nEven if AI can pretty accurately reflect the discourse of the day, as it is currently understood and accepted, our collective knowledge and culture will stagnate if we do not actively participate in developing it, and we will all pay the price for that.", ">\n\nThese are all moralistic arguments that ultimately don’t mean anything.", ">\n\nI would say they are more epistemic arguments, which do matter greatly in the context of education (which is what the op was referring to).", ">\n\nAre any of these things mentioned actually realistic concerns? Someone is going to train an AI bot to generate 90s female art characters with big tits?\nNo. Lol and even if someone did, who cares?", ">\n\nConsidering how many people believe obviously fake stories that have no supporting evidence (and in spite of contrary evidence), yes, I believe they are very real concerns.\nIf an AI says we should use Brawndo in farming because its got what plants crave (electrolytes), we should probably be able to justify it with reasoning beyond \"the AI says so.\"", ">\n\nWho is suggesting we do anything “just because an AI said so”? \nDo you read books and think everything in it is true “because the book says so”?", ">\n\nHow do you determine if what the book/ai said is false?\nYou would typically do it through a process of research and discovery.\nPeoples' ability to do research and discovery will be greatly diminished if we rely on AI to do those things for us (which is what the previous posters were suggesting).\nTherefore, reliance on AI will lead to us losing the ability to discern if the results of what the AI is saying is correct.", ">\n\nWhat? Lol that doesn’t make any sense at all. \nIt is not like if we use AI then all previous knowledge is simply forgotten or lost. It’s all still there.", ">\n\nForcing homework at school makes that \"not homework\", and this approach has never worked. You cant reject change, it never works. Every time there has been a game changing event, people adapted. Those who tried to reject change disappeared. Horse carriages disappeared from roads because something else replaced it. Some people supposedly rejected progress, but they are lying to themselves, they still use modern tech or services at some point.\nAnyway, the change is here, and it made essays irrelevant. Time to find another way to test people skills. \nGive it a little time though. ChatGPT costs a ginormous amount of money to run and will not stay free for long either.", ">\n\nIt's not just ChatGPT, the actual innovation is not the interface but lies in algorithms that can recreate natural language of similar quality with smaller data samples. There are also OpenSource datasets like ThePile, etc. so even if OpenAI moves to a paid model (and they will, quickly. You can already sign up to be first in line for the API), there will be other free providers.", ">\n\nHaving coded AIs, I disagree. ChatGPT is a regular trained AI. The novelty is the scale of the operation, and the fact there is a public API.\nNo one ever spent that much money on resources to run and train an AI publicly. I am pretty sure google has done something similar with user data sets to make their search engine and general ecosystem.\nI wish there was a way to have algorithms working with smaller data sets and produce similar results, but it kind of does not work that way.", ">\n\nThere are already tools to identify ChatGPT generated texts. Such tools will improve as another use of literally the same technology.\nJust as teachers submit essays for identifying plagiarism, teachers will submit essays for identifying AI-generated text. \nFurther, a focus could change from grading students on what they know to grading students' ability to ask meaningful, content-based questions about the subject. After all, knowing facts isn't particularly valuable as a skill. Integrating facts and discovering valuable questions is still something that remains a uniquely human skill. And is where people will continue to add value as AI becomes more advanced.", ">\n\nStudents have always been able to 'cheat' on work done outside the classroom, by copying or somehow getting others to do their work for them, even before the internet. Yes with more advanced modern technology it is easier but this has always been a concern. \nAs regular learning environments like supervised classrooms are already 'quarantined' in the way you descibe you are fundementally just suggesting an increase in learning hours as a supplement to homework. This has been suggested by many for various reasons but it would overall cuase more issues than it fixes. It increases work load on teachers and administrators, stretching already thin educational budgets, and forces increased mental strain on children. It would limit their ability to do other recreational and out of ciriculum activities. This would be disruptive and controlling when the quantity of teaching and learning time that children recive is already considered sufficiant for a good education.", ">\n\nHell the only thing stopping me from using ChatGPT regularly for my work now is that it's always at capacity.", ">\n\nApply tests that are hand written, doesnt matter how a person obtains the knowledge, actually learning the subject is most important thing.", ">\n\nThere is no amount of ChatGPT that could influence a good old oral exam where the teacher evaluates the understanding via a little chat.", ">\n\nSo tired of this view. We shouldn’t be fighting technology. Teach kids to use the resources they have to find answers. It’s such a waste of 12 years of school, teaching kids to memorize facts and follow rules. \nInstead, every test should be open book and reward the best answers. Ask the kids to show their work or explain their thought process so we reward understanding of a topic rather than memorization of steps or text.", ">\n\n20 years ago, there were already homework communities and learn groups. Even from the publishers of school books and with free access to tutors. Ok, they didnt do the final homework for me, but gave me a great starting point.\nBeing the kid who transcribes a wiki page was already stupid back then when others could call you out:\nBut I guess the actual problem is lack of digital literacy with teachers, they're always 5-10 years behind.", ">\n\nIf you are testing skills that can be done by free tools on the internet, then you are testing irrelevant skills.\nThe best way to educate kids is to test for skills they need, not skills they objectively don't.\nI was able to witness a couple of universities adapt to tests during quarantine, and follow reports on how the new methods would be used going forward.\nThe results where thus:\nMass offline testing is incredibly cost efficient (one examiner per ~300 students), but the tests results are a poor indicator of real world performance.\nOne to One testing is incredibly expensive, but can, when done right, test actual understanding and performance.\nBoth will be useful, of course. Mass testing is most useful when used in a way that students aren't incentivized to cheat, such as when framed as practice.", ">\n\nOne of the upsides of needing to prevent this kind of tech from cheating assignments is that teachers should focus on having students be able to do their homework at school. (As a former teacher, we were trying to do this already- no more than 15 min of homework per class). \nI dont think we need to do quite what you say. We just need to limit outside electronics and have in-person classrooms or computer labs with programs designed to be AI-proof. \nI have ALWAYS believed that cell phones/internet watches should be stored in school lockers (at most) and never allowed anywhere else on campus during the school day. If anyone needs to contact the students they contact the desk who relays their message/other need. Many schools already do this.", ">\n\n∆\nI agree with this. It would help.", ">\n\nThank you!", ">\n\nThat is utterly pointless.\nThere is no reason to limit the available tools.\nThis just reminds me of the entire \"you won't have a calculator wherever you go\" argument.\nSchool should instead put a focus on responsibly using available tools.", ">\n\nAnd if students choose to use them irresponsibly, what should schools do?\nAnd can you please define what constitutes responsible use? Because despite knowing about plagiarism, people still copy and paste from the internet. Perfect abstinence is easier than perfect moderation after all.", ">\n\nJust return to hand written essays and have more oral exams.", ">\n\n∆l\nActually of all comments having oral exams compliments my post and I agree with you. Enjoy the delta.", ">\n\nIn a Faraday cage.", ">\n\nIf children can just generate work with ChatGPT, it simply shows that children are not being taught anything valuable. (Once ChatGPT responses can be generated in almost unlimited amounts at very low cost, it necessarily means those responses are of low value)\nInstead shouldn't we be teaching children to provide more valuable outcomes that ChatGPT can't replicate?", ">\n\nBeing able to do on your own what ChatGPT does with access to an immense amount of data and processing power is valuable. The actual writing isn't valuable, obviously, but it would be silly to expect it to be. It's just a side effect of practice, you spend time making things of little or no value to build up the skills you'll need to make something that actually matters. That's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\nI think you'd be hard pressed to teach a class of children to outperform ChatGPT in writing without ever asking them to write something that could also be done via AI. What would that even look like?", ">\n\n\nThat's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\n\nIt is a problem. That is why I hated math class until 2nd year of university.", ">\n\nDid you start discovering novel math results in your second year of university, or was that just the point at which you first encountered problems you found interesting, despite the fact that someone else had already solved them before? Thinking back the class you didn't hate, do you think it should be removed if someone can construct an AI to give all the answers you gave?", ">\n\nThis is only a method for evaluating students, it doesn't do anything to educate them.\nChatgpt is potentially a great tool for education but trying to find complex ways around it for homework is pointless. When testing fact retention is required using school/university computers with no web browsing makes sense. For any other test or situation it's a tool that might be used.", ">\n\nI understand OPs concern. That said, I do not think you can create true quarantine for a multitude of reasons. \nThe biggest one is probably time. I worked through high school and university. Because I lived in the middle of nowhere it was about a 30 min drive to high school and then an hour to uni. Having to stay at these quarantine zones to complete assignments would have been hell on my schedule, car, and wallet. \nYou said it yourself, if someone is going to cheat, they will cheat. If I had to do the work in a quarantine zone, what exactly stops me from doing the actual work on my computer at home, printing it all out, and then just writing that into the computer at the quarantine zone? Unless you want to try having students write an entire essay in their hour long class? There has to be a point where they go home and then this falls apart.", ">\n\nThere are already lots of ways to cheat in homework and mostly our steps to deal with that amount to the honour system, and by university level, automated plagiarism detection (which can be quite easily avoided). The point you \"won't argue\" that people will cheat if given the opportunity is probably the actual crux of what's wrong with your suggestion and the part that needs a big [citation needed]. Concluding that the majority of people are fundamentally dishonest is a big assumption to handwave away. \nIf you want an education, cheating is stupid. Ultimately you might get a paper qualification out of it but you'll have actually learned nothing - you won't hold up long against someone who has done it properly when you actually have to apply the skills. Or if you do, then the assignments weren't that crucial to the learning in the first place.", ">\n\nMany of the things I learned in school were largely irrelevant. I couldn't use a calculator to do long division. After I passed those early elementary school years I never did long division again. I wouldn't even argue learning the long division algo is mandatory. It's nice to have learnt it I guess, but I spent way too many hours on it. I can see learning fundamentals of essay writing, etc, are great, but why can't we just evolve to learn more effective things in life? ChatGPT should be used as a tool, not viewed as a detriment.", ">\n\nIt'd suggest that the best way to educate them is to embrace ChatGBT and teach them to use it well. Your method is a bit like teaching kids to do math without calculators or accounting without excel or financial software. There is some value, but it runs out very quickly and you're at a social and competetive disadvantage for taking some archane principled approach to education that is more of a defense of \"how we used to do it\".\nI'm old enough to remember when using a word processor was sometime forbidden for reasons of fairness - that seems entirely disconnected now from doing good work and it's almost hard to envision the thought process of those who thought everything should be hand written for students. \nIsn't the kid who is amazing at utilizing tools like ChatGBT going to do much better in the world than the one who does not? Your idea of \"proper education\" would easily regress back to needing to do all subjects scrawled in dirt with sticks and grunted in non-standardized language.", ">\n\nOR, chatgpt will be a great boon to the entire education system:\nIncreased accessibility: ChatGPT and other AI-powered systems can provide education to individuals who otherwise would not have access to it, due to geographical, financial, or other barriers.\n\nPersonalized learning: ChatGPT can provide personalized education experiences based on each student's strengths, weaknesses, and learning style.\n\n24/7 availability: ChatGPT can operate 24/7, providing students with access to education at any time, anywhere, which can be especially beneficial for those with demanding schedules or for individuals in remote areas.\n\nScalability: ChatGPT can provide education to a large number of students simultaneously, which could help to address the shortage of teachers and resources in some areas.\n\nCost-effectiveness: ChatGPT can be a more cost-effective option for providing education compared to traditional methods, as it does not require physical classrooms or teachers.\n\nImproved student engagement: ChatGPT can provide interactive, engaging learning experiences that can hold students' attention and foster deeper learning.\n\n--Source: ChatGPT", ">\n\nThere a lots of places where texts and exams are “open book”. The questions have to be written differently, and the point is that you’re not testing someone’s ability to memorize, but rather their ability to understand. This is a more difficult test to write, so in theory AI could force education to improve since everyone would a virtual tutor with them at all times.", ">\n\nI'm a teacher and I've been thinking a lot about this the last couple months. Changes within the education system/curriculum/syllabus/retraining of teachers will take far too long to keep up with the ease of access to, and success of, chatgpt and AI in general. \nThe only solution moving forward both short and long term is to embrace it, there is no stopping it now anyway and if we don't all want to be out of a job in 5 years we need to - \n- demonstrate feasible/moral/ethical use of such tools\n- create more opportunities for collaborative learning/hands-on/problem solving tasks and ones that increase communication skills between peers. \nHow this applies to each individual, specific task will vary and must require a lot of creativity and trial and error, but I think relying too heavily on your department of education to handle this (or most 'boots on the ground' problems) will ultimately only degrade a students experience and ability for learning.", ">\n\nI'm with you on what you're trying to accomplish. I just don't know that it's the \"best\" way. \nFor instance, how is homework performed in school superior to trusting the kids to learn the material, which would then be tested by oral exam? And yes, I do believe that asking a student to verbally explain a topic is a really good way to gauge mastery.", ">\n\nThere is not a hope in hell that we'll go back to hand written stuff. That's not how technology works. As the music companies. There are better ways to show you know a subject, for sure, than the current out of-date ones. That's for sure. Have you ever taken an on-line exam?", ">\n\nI argue to let them use chatGPT as it will be their future. This is similar to my generations \"you'll never walk around with a calculator so learn math.\" The future children will grow into a society where work means utilizing AI tech to help them thrive. If chatGPT helps them write an essay, and it's good, it means they're using resources. I agree, however, that we should supplement this with actual reading and writing.", ">\n\nI would argue that most of time that ChatGPT and similar technologies is going to be an issue is in 8-12 grade and college.\nThis technology is not going away, and it's only going to improve. Personally I would treat it like calculators, audio books and spell check.\nTech kids how to use the technology properly. Sure it's somewhat handy to calculate numbers in your head, but having the ability to do math in your head does not give you much of an advantage in today's world and not being able to doesn't hurt you much. But it's still critical to know formulas and how to peace together algebraic statements and word problems. \nKnowing how to spell properly is less important than knowing proper word usage - most times you're writing something it can be spell-checked in real time. Sure it's \"terrible that today's kids...\" don't know how to spell... but it's not going to affect their career. \nEnter ChatGPT - same thing. Should I spend the time to write a white paper on the changing advertising landscape to alert my boss about the a potential seismic shift in advertising revenue, or should I ask ChatGPT to write it? As a user I have to understand its limits and potential copywrite issues, but even more importantly how to verify that what it writes is correct and targeting the right audience. Is data from before 2020 going to be recent and accurate enough for my thesis? How do I supplement the discussion with real-world data? \nThis is our new reality. We should be learning how to use the tools properly, not trying to figure out to lock it down (which frankly makes as much sense as locking down the use of calculators or spell check).", ">\n\nI think there are already apps in place that are able to detect AI generated text (Read this article).\nAlso, I think a better method would be to simply have a database of ChatGPT (could be encrypted) generated text and make it available to already existing software that is use to detect plagiarism (this is just an exemple amongst many)", ">\n\nFrankly I don’t think high schoolers and below should be given homework or tests at all. One learns magnitudes better through exploration as opposed to mindless repetition. Engage with these kids intellectually, make them free thinking Athenians, not bags of knowledge of which they have no idea how to use.\nDoes it not surprise anyone that we train people for over a decade in intellect yet hardly have any intellectuals?", ">\n\nI would argue that society would be better off spending resources on teaching children how to use this tool effectively. Knowing how to get the right answer is what matters in this world.", ">\n\nThen answer this: Well why learn math at all? Seriously.\nWhy learn he concept of subtraction let alone division? I could and society has argued that with the advent of digital calculators. \nYet we learn it. \nLater we use calculators to take the mundane and already known processes to the next level. We abstract away the mundane. \nAs a EE having worked and am working on products you may be using right now to read this, when I develop new silicon and chips I don’t break out Karnaugh maps and lay down circuit using a T square and stencils of gates. But I sure the hell know what I’m doing and expect the tools to do for me. \nTeaching fundamentals of reading, writing, arithmetic, essays, research are just that fundamental.", ">\n\nI’d argue that the vast majority don’t need anything beyond basic math anyways. \nGo ask the average adult if they know the quadratic equation and what it means and you’d probably be disappointed.", ">\n\nChatGPT is here to stay, you'd better advocate for teaching people how to make the most of it and use it wisely instead of pretending it doesn't exist.\nOne of my favourite teachers always told students to use the best tools there are.", ">\n\nI think it depends completely on the topic. In my field of study, it’s fairly easy to come up with term paper assignments that the bot would be useless for. \nLooking back at the paper I wrote last year, I don’t see how any current bot could have helped, as it isn’t able to read or summarize specific sources (yet?).\nAn example of the type of assignments we get is “Discuss the role of state capacity in x and x conflict in light of (specific research paper)‘s dimensions of state capacity - do your findings confirm the findings of (authors), why or why not?\nThis way of combining literature made it difficult even for me to be on top of it, as there were no sources that had attempted this exact combination - it has to be original. \nAlso, I find it’s the best way to learn, because you have to rely on your own judgement and there are no shortcuts, even asking the professor was unhelpful as he wasn’t too familiar with the details.", ">\n\nThis is not the best way.", ">\n\n\nThese homework rooms would have Internet connected computers for use but access to ChatGPT would be filtered and blocked.\n\nThis wouldn't be feasible, there's far too many roundabout ways to still access ChatGPT. Security measures like domain filtering are just unproductive games of whack-a-mole. \nEdit: removed all the other stuff I wrote, as those points have already been mentioned in previous top-level comments.", ">\n\nHomework shouldn’t be the go-to method of “education” to begin with. Imo Universities should focus on the integral part of education: the lectures. Tools like chatgpt can help student who are actually interested in a subject to learn more easily about it, but whether students actually learn anything or not from a class won’t change regardless of if work is authentic or copied from an AI\nSource: I’m a college student and have had experience in both supervised environments where we had to do work without the use of computers/phones and solely-online environments where many students cheated", ">\n\nWhile this could work, it is not necessarily the best way in terms of accessibility and of learning in general. \nFirst, students with ADHD and certain other conditions may not necessarily be the able to be productive at all times, or at the specific time they have to work on those computers, especially if those computers are not in an environment ideal to that specific person. It would also not be very feasible to give students enough time on these computers to complete the bigger assignments and essays. \nSecond, while ChatGPT is quite advanced, it simply works by looking at language patterns and often gets factual details incorrect. For example, with bigger coding problems, it tries to import modules that do not exist or call on functions that it has not defined. In literature, it cannot analyze texts on much more than a surface level. I will admit it can use secondary sources for textual analysis, however, it is unable to come up with a clear thesis on its own. \nAdditionally, take-home tests can be just as easily cheated on using a normal Google search, and usually test thinking skills rather than understanding and knowledge. \nFinally, essay-writing and other types of assignments are generally not ideal for learning as they are only one type of skill, and university professors are recognizing this. Not only do they not work for all learning styles, but they are only used so commonly because of tradition. University professors are structuring assignments around ways that are innovative enough that ChatGPT is unable to work on them. Along with requiring specific readings which the AI might not have access to, and citing of all sources (which has always been a requirement that the AI might trip up on), they are also going away from the traditional essay format into others. For example, I am studying literature, a relatively essay-heavy field, and in my past few courses I have been asked to analyze comics (which the AI cannot read), edit other people’s essays and articles (from past courses), create a mock syllabus or lesson plan with justifications for each reading, and create annotated bibliographies as a stepping stone to an essay. All of these not only require different skills and encourage different types of learning and research but are quite difficult for an AI to do. \nAll in all, while your suggestion is great, the very nature of the AI and the fact that it exists at all is perhaps a sign that the best course of action is to rework the way we think about evaluation. After all, if an evaluation is such that an AI can complete it without the ability to actually think (it works by using observed language patterns), then perhaps the evaluation is not ideal.", ">\n\nI bet teachers and people thought the same thing about calculators when they came out or 1990s internet. AI bots like chat GPT are just a tool.", ">\n\nAll this effectively does is train kids to accomplish goals of a type that do not exist in the real world in a situation they will never realistically encounter. A better goal is adjusting testing criteria to account for this.\nThere might be very specific sets of knowledge for which rote memorization is appropriate, and for those, the air gapped testing may be appropriate. But I believe those are the exception rather than the rule. By and large, teaching kids to effectively utilize the tools that will be available to them is what we should be doing.", ">\n\nImagine learning where the only books are hand written.\nThe printing press took out a huge amount of repetitive labor in the learning process.\nAI/ChatGPT stands a good chance of removing a huge amount knowledge labor which stands between an idea and the end product. Learning to use the AI to best effect the Idea->End Product Chain is more important than worrying about memorizing formulae we will likely never need to remember. \nThe effort to restrict ChatGPT is just education system worrying about their Cheese Being Moved.", ">\n\nThis just doesn't make any sense to me. You're arguing that we shouldn't allow students to use tools they would have at their disposal in a real working environment, and for what? Why wouldn't you want students to use every tool at their disposal? How exactly is handicapping them helping them to understand the coursework?\nA much better approach would be to fundamentally alter how we teach to better prepare them for the workforce. Encouraging collaboration and creative problem solving skills is much more practical and effective.", ">\n\nChatGPT may pass the Bar, but I highly doubt it will replace lawyers or other professionals. \nThe whole point of credentialing is to drive accountability. Anyone can study the law and cite precedent without a law degree. Actually representing a client in a court of law requires oversight and knowledge. ChatGPT isn't perfect - it will make mistakes from time to time. So who is responsible when it makes a mistake? When is a client (who is not familiar with the law) supposed to know that a mistake has been made on their behalf? For this reason, until ChatGPT is literally perfect you're always going to need a credentialed professional to review the output.\nFor the record, I think ChatGPT is wonderful. But it's a tool that people will use, not a full-fledged replacement for professionals. My employer (a Fortune 500 company) has already rejected its use for internal projects. IT has the website blocked.", ">\n\nThe kids that are educated without its use will fall behind in business when faced with kids that are using it to its fullest extent.\nYou've successfully made an argument for people to succeed in a test that is worthless in the real world. Its parameters don't match.", ">\n\nThe best way to educate children is to teach them skills and strategies that will actually serve them in the workplace of the future. \nChatGPT already has reached the point of replacing humans (See Buzzfeed news). If ChatGPT can take the test or do the homework then what value is that education going to be to these students? Especially older students will quickly see rote memorization as a waste of time and so yes they probably will cheat if they have the opportunity. Trying to force these things to be “learned” and prove that knowledge by brute force banning things is going to be a costly uphill battle.", ">\n\nWhat if we modify how essays are written by students, by asking them to include citations (which is something ChatGPT can’t do)?\nWe can’t stop new tools from making old methods obsolete. But we can focus on enhancing critical thinking of students in a stepwise manner. When a new tool is created, think about how you can adapt rather than resist it.", ">\n\nWhy not just train an ai to spot ai written papers?", ">\n\nWhat about gradually putting more emphasis on oral assignments?", ">\n\nEverything you said makes perfect sense...IF the goal was to teach children simply how to write the perfect standard essay. But that is a very limited way of viewing education and what its real goal is. The real goal of education is to teach children how to think. To come up with the right questions, not just the right answers. In a world where a \"good enough\" essay on literally anything can be conjured as if by magic by a machine, what's the actual value of that exercise now? For a very long time teachers have used the essay as a way to evaluate how a person thinks. Now that a machine can write it for you, we need new ways to evaluate how students think. That's the real task we are facing. Fuck the essay, just like we ditched the slide rule for calculators and later computers, etc. Tools change but the real game remains the same: Think for yourself!", ">\n\nI'd say the best way would be to accept the reality of changing technology and reevaluating the approach we have towards education as a whole.\nGranted, I'd say that's only one half of the picture: reassessing how we conceive if jobs and labour in the face of increasing automation goes along with that, and I think neither really works without the other.\nBottom line is that human labour is more and more obsolete as time goes on, so human jobs will be less and less in demand (I'd argue moving away from a capitalistic system is the right call, but even if you don't, automation is still an incentive).\nSince a large part of the incentive of our current education system is \"prepare you for a job\" I think the whole thing is going to fall short in light of these kinds of systems developing.\nTheres lots of people now who pursue knowledge as a project of passion, rather than a means to an end, and I think moving to a system that supports and encourages that kind of ambition is the way to go.", ">\n\nI disagree. We should learn to use the tools we have efficiently. Otherwise you are not learning for your career but for some professors ego", ">\n\nThat’s not “education in the era of ChatGPT.” That’s education in the era before ChatGPT while we figure out what the world with ChatGPT will look like so we have some idea of what to do with it.\nThat’s also not “educating,” that’s just “assessment.” Assessment is simply a measuring system for education. As long as you think of the acquisition of knowledge and skill as requiring knowledge regurgitation and skill performance in isolation and divorced from context/individualized, then you’re going to end up at necessitating a kind of geofenced, Luddite assessment model. The training itself predicates the assessment method. How we assess is defined by how we teach, and vice versa.\nThe best assessment method to gauge understanding is, and always has been, conversation.\nAll we need to do is pair assessment with regular conversation between qualified teacher and student to determine if personal comprehension is present. Not an interview, not an interrogation — conversation. Problem solving performance contexts are also great revealer of internalized knowledge and skill.\nChatGPT is a relative nonissue if your approach to assessment is at all human.\nIt’s only a problem when you’re trying to mechanize and dehumanized education. “Rigorous” does not mean “mechanical.” We are going to have to trust the professional, knowledge- and skill-assessing judgements of humans who already know and can do.\nEducation reverts to having more emphasis on apprenticeship and mentorship models, where the relationship itself is part of the learning process. \n(The “accountability!” cranks are gonna love that…)", ">\n\nI have a strong suspicion that discussions like this, while very interesting, will be obsolete long before any changes can actually be implemented in schools. In fact, I'm pretty sure schools will be gone entirely in the near future.\nAs of right now, you can be taught almost any subject by an exceptionally well-spoken, fast and infinitely patient teacher called GPT to a university level, if not higher. Try it right now - go ask GPT to explain the political situation that allowed Alexander the Great to conquer Persia, or ask it to explain the raytracing algorithm. If there's a part you don't understand, ask it to clarify. You'll be amazed how accessible it makes advanced topics.\nNow, how long before we have VR software with a realistic-looking AI teacher, with an AI-generated voice, who can do the same thing, but respond to students' voices and use body language and visual demonstrations? Five years?\nHow long after that before this tech is cheap, and of such high quality that sending your kids to school will be a worse education?\nNow in, say, 20 years, we could have an AI system that takes a DNA sample, analyses a students genotype to understand what subjects they will be naturally good at, what education approaches will be most successful, and continuously improves its model of the student's behavior by observing them. It crafts a decades-long education journey tailored to the individual, and accompanies them the entire way.\nTeachers, as far as they've existed so far, don't have a chance.", ">\n\nAre you trying to test someone or teach them?\nIf the latter, why do you care about cheating? This reminds me of the ol' teachers who used to restrict calculators because \"you won't always have a calculator with you.\"", ">\n\nYou forget that for 99% of homework students could just copy each other's work. Having the answers out in the world accessible is not a new problem. You just make homework a small part of the grades and you make sure students understand it's important to actually do it or they won't do well on the tests.", ">\n\nThere are so many people that can’t do the basic math examples you mentioned somewhere and they went to school at a time when there were no calculators.\nOn the other hand I was allowed to use calculators in school pretty much the moment I left elementary school and I am really quite good at math even without assistance.\nTool usage is one of humanities key features and trying to work against it instead of finding ways to incorporate new technology into school and life seems backwards.", ">\n\nIronically the teacher will have to use an AI to decipher the \"hand written\" assignments.", ">\n\nYou can't force people to learn.", ">\n\nWhat about teaching how to think rather than how to memorize? Just a thought 💭", ">\n\nThey need to get rid of homework, and have students do their work while they're at school. It's awful, they just pile it on, even if a class only has a little homework that day, there's like 6 or 7 classes so it's a nightmare for students. Seems like the only way to prevent cheating is have them do work in class, so I hope for the students sake, they do that.", ">\n\nI’ll throw my idea into the ring, though we’re still a few years off from this technology:\nWe should have students interact with AI tutors that can prompt them questions and point out details. Then they can collaborate on assignments, and the AI tutor can give feedback and suggest snippets. The AI can evaluate their work and their engagement with the material.", ">\n\nOne of Transformers main applications is in search. Ie you get a set of embeddings you can compare the pairwise distances between embedding and get a list of scores that tell you which embeddings are most similar to the input. \nEssentially tools like google are made to reduce the search space for a given query collect likely links and then rerank the most likely results. \nChatgpt basically does this in a more direct way of searching through a space of potential responses. Basically trained on a task to predict next token given the previous tokens or fill in a mask\nTransformers permeate everything students use from the recommendation algorithms on TikTok Facebook, YouTube to search systems in google. \nIn my opinion students should absolutely not be taught to fear these tools tho I do agree they be tested in constrained environments to challenge them. Current systems should not be used to learn unless you have a clear understanding and are willing to check every word and check your reasoning. Future systems will be much better though so this problem isn’t going anywhere. \nIf anything there should be a push to make these ideas more interpretable to a younger audience and give them the tools to navigate an increasingly complex market of ideas. They should be aware of the limitations and how when they use a piece of software their actions and the actions of those around them are influencing what they see next. \nIt should be used and taught with rigor. \nIt’s programming 2.0", ">\n\nDude no; \nChatGPT is the computer. \nDo you want to be the education system that banned the computer and then wondered why all the other education systems output modern tech workers, while your education system kept outputting chimney sweeps and car factory workers?", ">\n\nHW only exists to make students practice, and generally is worth less than 20% of the grade in a class. If a student chooses to use chat GPT to bypass it then that’s the student’s loss.\nUltimately exams are what schools use to evaluate a students knowledge and I don’t think that’s going to change anytime soon", ">\n\nThere are already programs that check if something was written by an AI or not. Also no student I know actually uses chatGPT for major assignments because chatGPT doesn’t know every text to ever be published so it doesn’t understand the context, and most of the time will just bullshit an answer that’s incorrect.\nEveryone I know that uses chatGPT for school do so for either for assignments so small and simple that it doesn’t make sense to quarantine, or they use it as a more advanced google that can answer questions more accurately than a search engine could, essentially just saving time.\n(most) students are using chatGPT largely as a productivity and time management tool rather than to cheat.", ">\n\nThis is like saying “in the age of calculators, the only way to ensure kids learn maths is to ban calculators in school”. If looked at correctly, chatgpt is an effect multiplier, learning just has to be rejigged to have kids learn to do things that they can’t simply ask chatgpt to do for them.", ">\n\nLess course work and more exams is the future in a world with chatGPT.", ">\n\nChatGPT will be a big no issue soon. I work in a research field and this was something we worried about last year. As of now there are multiple tools and even more being developed that catch the use of ChatGPT. There has been research published that list ChatGPT as a co-author, but for most research, and use by students, it will simply be forbidden and will easily be caught as well. The program does well but it has a particular style that can be caught. Again it will be a non-issue soon.", ">\n\nThis is like forbidding people to use a calculator because it can give you the result instant. A better way is to teach them how to use the calculator, because its here now and won't go away. Same with GPT. Children can learn way better/faster with ChatGPD if used correctly. Imaging having a private teacher for free which helps you learning every time of the day.", ">\n\nLet me ask you this. If ChatGPT could complete a students whole assignment, what would that student have learned from doing that assignment on their own that won’t simply be replaced with ChatGPT by a employer in the future?\nEven if ChatGPT doesn’t replace workers for a decade, why teach students skills that will inevitably be replaced and leave said students jobless in a decade?\nChatGPT won’t only be used in the workforce either. Linus Tech Tips has a video showing how ChatGPT can help people learn new skills and do troubleshooting on their own. If I remember correctly, he manages to completely build a pc by only strictly following what ChatGPT tells him to. It even managed to suggest the best parts for that computers specific use case. It was nowhere near perfect, but in the future it will get there.\nSince ChatGPT is such a useful tool in the workforce and at home, I think it’s crucial we teach students how to use it instead of banning them from it. Maybe students should be given a problem and tasked to use ChatGPT to find the solution or have students attempt to learn a new topic with ChatGPT. I’m not a teacher, I just thought of those examples of the top of my head. I’m sure qualified teachers could think of better assignments than me.\nI could see ChatGPT helping a mechanic diagnose an issue so the mechanic could spend more time fixing the problem rather than diagnosing and I can think of a few examples in other jobs as well where ChatGPT will help a worker be more efficient and save more time.\nI think, if anything, we’re setting students up for failure by not teaching them about these tools that will take over the workforce and help in everyday life.", ">\n\nYou’ll still have to pass a test. Relax.", ">\n\nIt “fairs” extremely well? Maybe some additional time spent observing ChatGPT could actually benefit some", ">\n\nThere’s just no way you can use ChatGPT to do all of your work for you and be successful at any moderately high level of academic pursuit. Not without learning the material yourself, and if you’ve done that, I don’t think it matters so much whether you used chatGPT and for what along the way.\nFrankly if you start our using chatGPT early in school, you won’t even be able to ask the right questions in the right way and include the necessary refinements to do more complex and demanding assignments down the road. \nAlso, tests are still a thing aren’t they? ChatGPT doesn’t help you perform in person in a monitored environment - not in a way that would allow you to skip learning the material. I don’t really get this aspect of your cmv. As long as tests don’t allow access to ChatGPT, anyone who didn’t learn the material is going to be exposed..", ">\n\nThere are already programs that detect ChatGPT writing.", ">\n\nThe children who want to cheat will always find a way to do so. It doesn’t matter how much you do to restrict it, it’ll just make them find new means of doing so. \nSource: I did GCSE’s in the UK, AP in the US. Trust, kids will cheat even in sterile environments. Especially if it’s a huge room and there are few moderators. A lot of us are scared of repercussions but those who aren’t won’t let anything stand in there way—region and proctoring be damned.", ">\n\nI require them to complete an outline first. Outline must be submitted to me before I take the essay. Google doc lets you see that they write it and when each sentence was written. It’s helped.", ">\n\nCHATGPT is a tool, and in some applications (not all), it can help students do their homework. Consider the calculator. Do students not need to learn formulas and critical thinking just because they can punch numbers into calculators?\nNo, math is still a skill that is valuable if for no other reason then because it trains your brain to solve problems.\nOne of the things that surprises me is that ChatGPT can use words and explain things to students even when a teacher is not available or when there isn’t one. we should consider this an educational opportunity rather than a disadvantage.\nThere are so many amazing things we humans can do when we simply have tools to help us. ChatGPT is no different.", ">\n\nYou can’t force people to live in the past. Chat GPT is here to stay. Education now needs to focus on teaching people how to use AI, and how to develop a skill that can’t be replaced by AI.", ">\n\nHow about getting students engaged in what they’re learning and excited to learn. Find what they’re good at and double down on it. Don’t make school a fucking quarantine bubble. Socialize, allow them to teach and learn from each other. Replace the potential for cheating with collaboration assignments in person. “Children will cheat if given the opportunity” is such horse shit. If somebody doesn’t know or wasn’t taught something well then yea they’re gonna look to get it right so they can obtain approval. How about teaching them so they won’t cheat??", ">\n\nThats not it. I don’t have an answer for you, but thats not it.", ">\n\nHow about just have the kids do a presentation on \"their\" report with Q&A at the end. They'll have no choice but to know the info.... which is the point." ]
> I wonder if anyone has tried training a machine to look at assignments and give a confidence interval of the assignment being either human or machine in origin.	[ "/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^\| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.", ">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?", ">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.", ">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?", ">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.", ">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?", ">\n\nYou mean a grade?", ">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication", ">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.", ">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)", ">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.", ">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.", ">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.", ">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.", ">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?", ">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.", ">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.", ">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.", ">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.", ">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.", ">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.", ">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.", ">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.", ">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.", ">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.", ">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.", ">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.", ">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.", ">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use", ">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.", ">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.", ">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.", ">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.", ">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.", ">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.", ">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.", ">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).", ">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.", ">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.", ">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.", ">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.", ">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.", ">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.", ">\n\n\nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \n\nWhy? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it. \n\nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \n\nWhy? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? \nLet's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project. \n\nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.\n\nTotally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator.", ">\n\nFor the most part, knowledge workers perform a given amount of work in a given amount of hours, and the number of them hired by a company is TotalHoursNeeded/NumHoursPerEmployee. E.g. if you have 100 manyears of work to get done in a typical year, you employ 100 people.\nChat GPT isn't going to \"replace\" people wholesale, because as you say someone still needs to supervise it. But it looks to be on track to increase the productivity of programmers (can write a first draft of code and finds many of the bugs instantly). \nSame for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones. \nSo now the TotalNeeded is decreased by some percentage, let's say 10% to start. Now you only need 90 human programmers to do that same work. With 25% efficiency gain, you need 75. With 50%, 50. Etc. \nOr take translation jobs. Today, an editor spends roughly 3 minutes per word editing machine translated text, and 1 minute per word editing human-translated text. As long as editors are more expensive per hour than first translation people, it still makes sense much of the time to hire translators, because the software isn't free. \nBut the graph of machine translation \"efficiency\" is trending towards taking the same amount of time to edit as a human translator. As soon as that's hit, there's literally no reason to hire human translators, only editors. \nAnd if the editing time goes down to 30 seconds/word because of further AI assistance to the editor, you only need half as many of those.", ">\n\nThere is currently two better solutions being worked on - one of which is already being used to some degree. \nThe first is ChatGPT developers themselves making moves to make AI written works to be identified by \"watermark\" or similar. I don't thi k this one has taken effect at all yet. \nAnother is by a separate dev team that allows teachers to use software to determine the amount of an essay, for example, that is written by AI what the likelihood of any one sentence or paragraph to have been written by AI. This allows the teachers to use discretion when determining if the student used the AI in a way that they find acceptable or not. This way instead kf running from the scary AI educators can actually utilize tyhe AI with students to help them develop their writing and other communications.", ">\n\nWhat about kids with transportation issues? When I was in school I knew kids that drove almost an hour each way to get there. I certainly couldn’t have asked my parents to drop everything to take me all the way to school so I could do my homework if I forgot. Bus schedules? Do you think schools want to waste more money by burning more gas for extra routes? I understand where you’re coming from, but for a fair amount of children—especially in poorer, more rural areas—that getting to school and back is such a delicate balancing act that such a thing would just punish them.", ">\n\nI've seen a few key things from academics testing out ChatGPT (I have not signed up myself):\n\nIt tends to produce confident, convincing nonsense. It doesn't actually understand what it's writing about, and I hear it shows.\nIt makes up citations. Real authors in the field, real journals... but made-up titles. Things like that, since, again, it doesn't actually understand citations.\n\nThis suggests that, for assignments requiring the demonstration of genuine, in-depth understanding, and not merely the ability to summarize facts, ChatGPT will fail.\nA similar example that you bring up in the comments is programming cheat sheets into calculators - but for well-designed engineering exams (including the licensure exams, at least in the US), cheat sheets are fine and often either allowed or provided. A well-designed exam tests the ability to apply principles, not knowledge of equations, so a cheat sheet is harmless, or even allows the exam to work better (since people aren't distracted with memorizing equations).", ">\n\nThere are three criticisms that I have of this approach. \n\n\nShould we not teach to the environment that we live in? Yes, education often imposes arbitrary constraints like time tests but for research and reports why not let people use and work around all resources? If you can work around chat gpt to work efficiently, then do it. You learn what it can and can’t do and how to use it effectively as a tool. \n\n\nCan chatGPT on it’s own actually write a good essay? From what I have seen it can pull together a few sources. It can generally write fluff based on other things that it has seen. But it struggles to write analysis. It can’t interrogate a source or make value judgements. It could be useful for doing some filler or providing ideas but if to do an actual report, I think it would be insufficient. \n\n\nAn assignment that can be done using chatgpt is probably boring. Here I am writing an essay for no reason other than I find it interesting to discuss this topic. Perhaps, we arent giving students interesting enough assignments or we are overloading them to the point that they don’t have the time to engage? If chatGPT turns out to be an issue maybe it’s more of an indictment of the structures and norms of education.", ">\n\n\n\nhomework in the form of essays, take home tests, coding assignments, would be completed on school grounds. \n\n\nCongratulations, you've invented the \"cram school\".\nI'd recommend reading through your post again and actually thinking about the things you've said. Because essentially, you're merely advocating for the wholesale elimination of homework and for education outside of that to remain totally unchanged. It's almost literally, \"Make the school day 30% longer\".\nMy solution to the \"problem\" of students potentially using ChatGPT to cheat on homework: I don't think you need a hilariously convoluted system of homework \"boiler rooms\" redolent of national security apparatus, that requires schools to adopt ruinously expensive and disruptive technological and administrative changes.\nIt would be sufficient if we institute a system whereby teachers are encouraged to, let's say... \"test\" their students, whether by regular written exams or by talking to them in what I'll call \"classes\", to ensure they understand the material they've been assigned to learn.\nThis method ensures that students cannot use AI homework bots to coast through classes (since they'll literally be found out the very next class), and has the added benefit of not adding three hours to every teacher's day.", ">\n\nWhat about pen and ink?", ">\n\narguably I can just copy a ChatGPT output by hand. So I think that is a first level measure, but not a complete solution.", ">\n\nIt's a better solution than prison just because the curriculum can't keep up with technology.\nWhen calculators arrived on everyone's phone and everyone's pocket did you advocate for the same solution? Unlikely, so why only now with this system?", ">\n\nWell I did and I was. When I was studying engineering in the 80s we routinely could not arrive at exams with a calculator. Even then calculators were programmable enough to allow students to write cheat sheets in calculator memory.\nIt forced us to memorize equations, principals of engineering, and independent thinking. I’m a better engineer because I did.", ">\n\nSo you're what, almost 60? And you think what's best for children is to be like you? Don't you think you may be a bit out of touch?\nAlso, your view was about K12 students, not engineering students.", ">\n\nNo. As I replied, leaning on tools as a crutch all your life will limit your ability and function as a human. For example, you could argue that basic math isn’t necessary. As matter of fact that was an argument years ago with the advent of calculators.\nHowever, humans should be able to exist and functions without a digital crutch. You should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator. You should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google. There are basic elements of duration necessary since we are all still wet grey matter.", ">\n\n\nYou should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator\n\nBut why?\n\nYou should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google\n\nAgain, why?\nWhere do you get your \"should\" from?\nI have basically all human knowledge in my hand, every equation or conversion I'll ever need day to day, even every language I'll likely ever encounter. Why shouldn't I leave my brain free to think about what it wants and to use my incredible resource as and when it's needed?\nDo you envision some Saw-like situation where you're locked to a wall and need to solve maths equations at pain of death?", ">\n\nThe less you use your brain the less likely your body is to maintain it. Our body functions through a use or lose it principle. Just look people who lose movement function/muscle just by being bedridden for a long time. Our brain is not different.\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.", ">\n\nIs wasting resources on process you can deletage outside not using your brain? You free up that space to put to what you decide is important.\n\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.\n\nThe weakest man with a gun can take out the strongest bodybuilder.", ">\n\nAnd if you decide Tik tok and Netflix are important? How do you think that will affect the cognitive ability of kids?\nI didn't mention strength nor physical strength. And even then the strongest man with a gun will probably take out the weakest man with a gun.(An actual fair comparison)", ">\n\nCouldn't chatgpt (or somesuch AI) be asked \"Hey - did you write this?\" and nip this sort of thing in the bud?", ">\n\nNo, Chat GPT doesn't remember everything it's said, the potential things it could say are huge and even if someone wrote something that Chat GPT might say, it could be a coincidence.", ">\n\nWell, strike that idea then.\nStill though - there must be some way to use AI to deal with this. \"set a thief to catch a thief\" and all that.", ">\n\nChat GPT (and most generative AIs) use GANs to generate content. \nIn laymen's terms (and extremely simplified as it's above my level of understanding) a GAN is 2 AI systems competing against each other, a creator AI that creates content and a checker AI that decides if the content was genuine or made by the other AI. \nSo any automated way to tell if it's AI generated can be built into the checker AI in future versions and the creator AI will learn to avoid whichever features the checker AI is spotting.", ">\n\nChatGPT is just another mechanism for reducing the need for labor, and it's not going away. \nChildren will need to be educated in both how to make effective use of it (for as long as it's not sufficient to completely eliminate mental labor), and also in the ethics of not using it. Always forcing them to write in airgapped places isn't going to do that, it just makes them resent it. \nAlso: essay writing on a scale needed to really learn long-form writing is not very amenable to doing in an airgapped classroom, because honestly we're not using dead-tree sources of information anymore already, so doing their research pretty much has to include doing it on line. \nBut really: laborious manual long-form essay writing is going to go the way of penmanship and looking things up in a library as an unneeded skill very quickly. We need children to adjust to that reality of the modern world rather than pretending it will go away. \nPeople are still needed (for now) to do the important part of writing essays without doing the laborious bit that ChatGPT automates anyway: deciding what to write, and editing it into a convincing and well-written form. \nForcing kids to spend a lot of time learning how to write the basic bulk part of essays is a lot like teaching them how to make buggy-whips in shop class: a pointless exercise. \nIt would be better to give them all prewritten ChatGPT essays and have them learn the limitations and capabilities.", ">\n\nIs ChatGPT really that much more effective than just grabbing things off Wikipedia? I was asking it things about elections and it was just Wikipedia from two years ago", ">\n\nThe answer is NEVER to limit technology. It’s to teach the new generation how to use that technology to achieve the same goal.\nIt’s pointless to ban computers and teach the memorization of dates in history class. It’s much more productive to teach online research skills so that if an individual needs to know the date of a particular moment in history, they can reliably Google it.\nChatGPT is the same. It renders writing essays as pointless, and it necessitates the teachers to adapt to new teaching styles, such as teaching the skills on how best to manipulate ChatGPT to return the information you need.", ">\n\nI was banned from using programming calculators when I studied engineering in the 80s during exams. It forced the students to all be on the same level playing field and forced us to actually know the equations, their applications, and the processes of whatever engineering course I was taking.\nIt made us better engineers.", ">\n\nHow does handicapping you make you a better engineer? If I put you and an engineer trained with technology in the same room together, who do you think would accomplish the task faster?", ">\n\nThe handicapped engineer, easily. The point of forcing students to actually learn the material is so that they understand how to reason about the underlying processes when they need to troubleshoot something going wrong, and understand the tradeoffs between approaches and how to select the best one for the task. \nOnce you understand things deeply you don't actually need training in doing things quickly because it's immediately intuitive how to apply a technological process to save time. The guy that leaned heavily on technology is basically fucked if he has to use a technique or software that he didn't specifically train on since he doesn't have a good foundation to abstract from. It would be more appropriate to call this person a technician.", ">\n\nThe purpose of calculators is to do the menial part of the work, not to solve whole processes. The engineer that learned with calculators likely knows how to select the right process to solve a problem, but uses the calculator to do the math faster and with fewer errors.", ">\n\nAt the college level, we’re not talking about tools to add and multiply. We’re talking about tools like Wolfram Alpha that do entire symbolic manipulations for you. If I took a calculus class and on all the assignments used Wolfram Alpha to find derivatives, do you think I would have learned anything?\nThat is what ChatGPT is doing for essays", ">\n\nThere are things called pencil and paper.", ">\n\nAs I said, this is the first line defense. However as I already commented to another user. I can simply hand copy ChatGPT output. Essentially not doing my own independent research, writing, coding, and studying.", ">\n\nWhy don't you consider that research? \nThe first source was the best. It's incredibly efficient research IMO.", ">\n\nThe idea of tool removal has always been flawed. From calculators to chat GPT and beyond. If your test is so flimsy that a simple tool invalidates it then the test is poorly built. Test shouldn't be simple busywork tasks, they should require thinking, problem solving, complex thought. If it's just a game of memorization that can be cheated by answers on a paper, you've built a bad test.\nover memorization (which is what our current school systems teach) is not only unhelpful, but also harmful. We live in an era of wikipedia being a reliable source, of vast access to tools both online and phsycial. We should be teaching kids they should do the work but with the help of those tools, not despite them.\nThe main issue with your argument is that based on what you've said, i can assume you think the current school system is a good one but so many studies have shown that at least here in the US, the school systems are some of the worst in the world. It's this memorize, ignore tools, singular focus mentality that plays such a big role.\nIf we were more creative with education, incorporating tool utilization into the learning process, we'd likely have a major improvement to our educational successes. I could go on about how the education system prefers certain kinds of students over others, and how many students are left behind simply because they don't learn like other kids and are therefore punished, but I won't. All I'll say is that more restrictions on how and what kids learn isn't going to help them learn more or better.\nand in 15 years when chat GPT is a part of daily life in every single company on the planet in some way or another (which I'm beyond certain it will be), kids who were taught how to properly utilize it will have just such a huge advantage in the workforce over those who weren't", ">\n\nRather than attempt to find ways to prevent new technology from interfering with existing pedagogy, shouldn't we review and revise pedagogy as new technology develops? \nIf a chat AI program can write these things, what is the point of having humans repeatedly do the same work? We don't expect people to use an abacus when doing math, or limit their research to what's in the library card catalogue, or require printed paper publications as essay resources; we adapted to the calculator, and to the internet and search engines. So too should we adapt to things like ChatGPT, not by trying to pretend it doesn't exist, but by finding ways to incorporate it into a more holistic approach to learning.\nRather than chain kids to an airgapped room on school grounds outside of school hours to do homework that's of dubious educational value in the first place, we should take this as an opportunity to refocus schooling on in-class engagement and direct instruction. ChatGPT and programs like it are showing us yet another thing we as humans can outsource to our technology, so why struggle to do things in a more difficult and inefficient way?", ">\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\nIn addition, AI is only as good as the data it is fed. You must still be able to do the work on your own to analyze when the AI is giving valid outputs (garbage in, garbage out). This is especially true, when AI runs the risks of being owned or operated by those with a specific agenda. Can you imagine the trouble that would result if people relied on AI to determine who to vote for, but someone was able to pay the operators to have the AI promote them?\nRelying on AI to do our work for us is a distillation of an appeal to authority fallacy on a large scale (if the AI says it, it must be true).", ">\n\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\n\nThis is something I worry about A LOT when it comes to AI. Our collective understanding of the subjects that we usually classify as \"the humanities\" is constantly evolving as we learn more, and especially as a more diverse set of people are allowed to study, research and put forth opinions and arguments.\nImagine if students were outsourcing all their history, psychology, sociology and philosophy homework to a chatbot with a 1950s understanding of those subjects.\nImagine doctors outsourcing psych patient diagnoses to a chatbot with the same understanding.\nOn an arguably less \"serious\" but still critically important moral and political topic, imagine if all/most videogame art was outsourced to an AI engine with a 1990s sensibility for female characters. Same for all kinds of representation and diversity.\nHow about politics and political science in general... ha!\nEtc, etc etc.\nIt is NOT the case that we already have discovered all the true answers to the big questions, and we can merely turn to a \"knowledge calculator\" like ChatGPT to spit out the truth.\nEven if AI can pretty accurately reflect the discourse of the day, as it is currently understood and accepted, our collective knowledge and culture will stagnate if we do not actively participate in developing it, and we will all pay the price for that.", ">\n\nThese are all moralistic arguments that ultimately don’t mean anything.", ">\n\nI would say they are more epistemic arguments, which do matter greatly in the context of education (which is what the op was referring to).", ">\n\nAre any of these things mentioned actually realistic concerns? Someone is going to train an AI bot to generate 90s female art characters with big tits?\nNo. Lol and even if someone did, who cares?", ">\n\nConsidering how many people believe obviously fake stories that have no supporting evidence (and in spite of contrary evidence), yes, I believe they are very real concerns.\nIf an AI says we should use Brawndo in farming because its got what plants crave (electrolytes), we should probably be able to justify it with reasoning beyond \"the AI says so.\"", ">\n\nWho is suggesting we do anything “just because an AI said so”? \nDo you read books and think everything in it is true “because the book says so”?", ">\n\nHow do you determine if what the book/ai said is false?\nYou would typically do it through a process of research and discovery.\nPeoples' ability to do research and discovery will be greatly diminished if we rely on AI to do those things for us (which is what the previous posters were suggesting).\nTherefore, reliance on AI will lead to us losing the ability to discern if the results of what the AI is saying is correct.", ">\n\nWhat? Lol that doesn’t make any sense at all. \nIt is not like if we use AI then all previous knowledge is simply forgotten or lost. It’s all still there.", ">\n\nForcing homework at school makes that \"not homework\", and this approach has never worked. You cant reject change, it never works. Every time there has been a game changing event, people adapted. Those who tried to reject change disappeared. Horse carriages disappeared from roads because something else replaced it. Some people supposedly rejected progress, but they are lying to themselves, they still use modern tech or services at some point.\nAnyway, the change is here, and it made essays irrelevant. Time to find another way to test people skills. \nGive it a little time though. ChatGPT costs a ginormous amount of money to run and will not stay free for long either.", ">\n\nIt's not just ChatGPT, the actual innovation is not the interface but lies in algorithms that can recreate natural language of similar quality with smaller data samples. There are also OpenSource datasets like ThePile, etc. so even if OpenAI moves to a paid model (and they will, quickly. You can already sign up to be first in line for the API), there will be other free providers.", ">\n\nHaving coded AIs, I disagree. ChatGPT is a regular trained AI. The novelty is the scale of the operation, and the fact there is a public API.\nNo one ever spent that much money on resources to run and train an AI publicly. I am pretty sure google has done something similar with user data sets to make their search engine and general ecosystem.\nI wish there was a way to have algorithms working with smaller data sets and produce similar results, but it kind of does not work that way.", ">\n\nThere are already tools to identify ChatGPT generated texts. Such tools will improve as another use of literally the same technology.\nJust as teachers submit essays for identifying plagiarism, teachers will submit essays for identifying AI-generated text. \nFurther, a focus could change from grading students on what they know to grading students' ability to ask meaningful, content-based questions about the subject. After all, knowing facts isn't particularly valuable as a skill. Integrating facts and discovering valuable questions is still something that remains a uniquely human skill. And is where people will continue to add value as AI becomes more advanced.", ">\n\nStudents have always been able to 'cheat' on work done outside the classroom, by copying or somehow getting others to do their work for them, even before the internet. Yes with more advanced modern technology it is easier but this has always been a concern. \nAs regular learning environments like supervised classrooms are already 'quarantined' in the way you descibe you are fundementally just suggesting an increase in learning hours as a supplement to homework. This has been suggested by many for various reasons but it would overall cuase more issues than it fixes. It increases work load on teachers and administrators, stretching already thin educational budgets, and forces increased mental strain on children. It would limit their ability to do other recreational and out of ciriculum activities. This would be disruptive and controlling when the quantity of teaching and learning time that children recive is already considered sufficiant for a good education.", ">\n\nHell the only thing stopping me from using ChatGPT regularly for my work now is that it's always at capacity.", ">\n\nApply tests that are hand written, doesnt matter how a person obtains the knowledge, actually learning the subject is most important thing.", ">\n\nThere is no amount of ChatGPT that could influence a good old oral exam where the teacher evaluates the understanding via a little chat.", ">\n\nSo tired of this view. We shouldn’t be fighting technology. Teach kids to use the resources they have to find answers. It’s such a waste of 12 years of school, teaching kids to memorize facts and follow rules. \nInstead, every test should be open book and reward the best answers. Ask the kids to show their work or explain their thought process so we reward understanding of a topic rather than memorization of steps or text.", ">\n\n20 years ago, there were already homework communities and learn groups. Even from the publishers of school books and with free access to tutors. Ok, they didnt do the final homework for me, but gave me a great starting point.\nBeing the kid who transcribes a wiki page was already stupid back then when others could call you out:\nBut I guess the actual problem is lack of digital literacy with teachers, they're always 5-10 years behind.", ">\n\nIf you are testing skills that can be done by free tools on the internet, then you are testing irrelevant skills.\nThe best way to educate kids is to test for skills they need, not skills they objectively don't.\nI was able to witness a couple of universities adapt to tests during quarantine, and follow reports on how the new methods would be used going forward.\nThe results where thus:\nMass offline testing is incredibly cost efficient (one examiner per ~300 students), but the tests results are a poor indicator of real world performance.\nOne to One testing is incredibly expensive, but can, when done right, test actual understanding and performance.\nBoth will be useful, of course. Mass testing is most useful when used in a way that students aren't incentivized to cheat, such as when framed as practice.", ">\n\nOne of the upsides of needing to prevent this kind of tech from cheating assignments is that teachers should focus on having students be able to do their homework at school. (As a former teacher, we were trying to do this already- no more than 15 min of homework per class). \nI dont think we need to do quite what you say. We just need to limit outside electronics and have in-person classrooms or computer labs with programs designed to be AI-proof. \nI have ALWAYS believed that cell phones/internet watches should be stored in school lockers (at most) and never allowed anywhere else on campus during the school day. If anyone needs to contact the students they contact the desk who relays their message/other need. Many schools already do this.", ">\n\n∆\nI agree with this. It would help.", ">\n\nThank you!", ">\n\nThat is utterly pointless.\nThere is no reason to limit the available tools.\nThis just reminds me of the entire \"you won't have a calculator wherever you go\" argument.\nSchool should instead put a focus on responsibly using available tools.", ">\n\nAnd if students choose to use them irresponsibly, what should schools do?\nAnd can you please define what constitutes responsible use? Because despite knowing about plagiarism, people still copy and paste from the internet. Perfect abstinence is easier than perfect moderation after all.", ">\n\nJust return to hand written essays and have more oral exams.", ">\n\n∆l\nActually of all comments having oral exams compliments my post and I agree with you. Enjoy the delta.", ">\n\nIn a Faraday cage.", ">\n\nIf children can just generate work with ChatGPT, it simply shows that children are not being taught anything valuable. (Once ChatGPT responses can be generated in almost unlimited amounts at very low cost, it necessarily means those responses are of low value)\nInstead shouldn't we be teaching children to provide more valuable outcomes that ChatGPT can't replicate?", ">\n\nBeing able to do on your own what ChatGPT does with access to an immense amount of data and processing power is valuable. The actual writing isn't valuable, obviously, but it would be silly to expect it to be. It's just a side effect of practice, you spend time making things of little or no value to build up the skills you'll need to make something that actually matters. That's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\nI think you'd be hard pressed to teach a class of children to outperform ChatGPT in writing without ever asking them to write something that could also be done via AI. What would that even look like?", ">\n\n\nThat's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\n\nIt is a problem. That is why I hated math class until 2nd year of university.", ">\n\nDid you start discovering novel math results in your second year of university, or was that just the point at which you first encountered problems you found interesting, despite the fact that someone else had already solved them before? Thinking back the class you didn't hate, do you think it should be removed if someone can construct an AI to give all the answers you gave?", ">\n\nThis is only a method for evaluating students, it doesn't do anything to educate them.\nChatgpt is potentially a great tool for education but trying to find complex ways around it for homework is pointless. When testing fact retention is required using school/university computers with no web browsing makes sense. For any other test or situation it's a tool that might be used.", ">\n\nI understand OPs concern. That said, I do not think you can create true quarantine for a multitude of reasons. \nThe biggest one is probably time. I worked through high school and university. Because I lived in the middle of nowhere it was about a 30 min drive to high school and then an hour to uni. Having to stay at these quarantine zones to complete assignments would have been hell on my schedule, car, and wallet. \nYou said it yourself, if someone is going to cheat, they will cheat. If I had to do the work in a quarantine zone, what exactly stops me from doing the actual work on my computer at home, printing it all out, and then just writing that into the computer at the quarantine zone? Unless you want to try having students write an entire essay in their hour long class? There has to be a point where they go home and then this falls apart.", ">\n\nThere are already lots of ways to cheat in homework and mostly our steps to deal with that amount to the honour system, and by university level, automated plagiarism detection (which can be quite easily avoided). The point you \"won't argue\" that people will cheat if given the opportunity is probably the actual crux of what's wrong with your suggestion and the part that needs a big [citation needed]. Concluding that the majority of people are fundamentally dishonest is a big assumption to handwave away. \nIf you want an education, cheating is stupid. Ultimately you might get a paper qualification out of it but you'll have actually learned nothing - you won't hold up long against someone who has done it properly when you actually have to apply the skills. Or if you do, then the assignments weren't that crucial to the learning in the first place.", ">\n\nMany of the things I learned in school were largely irrelevant. I couldn't use a calculator to do long division. After I passed those early elementary school years I never did long division again. I wouldn't even argue learning the long division algo is mandatory. It's nice to have learnt it I guess, but I spent way too many hours on it. I can see learning fundamentals of essay writing, etc, are great, but why can't we just evolve to learn more effective things in life? ChatGPT should be used as a tool, not viewed as a detriment.", ">\n\nIt'd suggest that the best way to educate them is to embrace ChatGBT and teach them to use it well. Your method is a bit like teaching kids to do math without calculators or accounting without excel or financial software. There is some value, but it runs out very quickly and you're at a social and competetive disadvantage for taking some archane principled approach to education that is more of a defense of \"how we used to do it\".\nI'm old enough to remember when using a word processor was sometime forbidden for reasons of fairness - that seems entirely disconnected now from doing good work and it's almost hard to envision the thought process of those who thought everything should be hand written for students. \nIsn't the kid who is amazing at utilizing tools like ChatGBT going to do much better in the world than the one who does not? Your idea of \"proper education\" would easily regress back to needing to do all subjects scrawled in dirt with sticks and grunted in non-standardized language.", ">\n\nOR, chatgpt will be a great boon to the entire education system:\nIncreased accessibility: ChatGPT and other AI-powered systems can provide education to individuals who otherwise would not have access to it, due to geographical, financial, or other barriers.\n\nPersonalized learning: ChatGPT can provide personalized education experiences based on each student's strengths, weaknesses, and learning style.\n\n24/7 availability: ChatGPT can operate 24/7, providing students with access to education at any time, anywhere, which can be especially beneficial for those with demanding schedules or for individuals in remote areas.\n\nScalability: ChatGPT can provide education to a large number of students simultaneously, which could help to address the shortage of teachers and resources in some areas.\n\nCost-effectiveness: ChatGPT can be a more cost-effective option for providing education compared to traditional methods, as it does not require physical classrooms or teachers.\n\nImproved student engagement: ChatGPT can provide interactive, engaging learning experiences that can hold students' attention and foster deeper learning.\n\n--Source: ChatGPT", ">\n\nThere a lots of places where texts and exams are “open book”. The questions have to be written differently, and the point is that you’re not testing someone’s ability to memorize, but rather their ability to understand. This is a more difficult test to write, so in theory AI could force education to improve since everyone would a virtual tutor with them at all times.", ">\n\nI'm a teacher and I've been thinking a lot about this the last couple months. Changes within the education system/curriculum/syllabus/retraining of teachers will take far too long to keep up with the ease of access to, and success of, chatgpt and AI in general. \nThe only solution moving forward both short and long term is to embrace it, there is no stopping it now anyway and if we don't all want to be out of a job in 5 years we need to - \n- demonstrate feasible/moral/ethical use of such tools\n- create more opportunities for collaborative learning/hands-on/problem solving tasks and ones that increase communication skills between peers. \nHow this applies to each individual, specific task will vary and must require a lot of creativity and trial and error, but I think relying too heavily on your department of education to handle this (or most 'boots on the ground' problems) will ultimately only degrade a students experience and ability for learning.", ">\n\nI'm with you on what you're trying to accomplish. I just don't know that it's the \"best\" way. \nFor instance, how is homework performed in school superior to trusting the kids to learn the material, which would then be tested by oral exam? And yes, I do believe that asking a student to verbally explain a topic is a really good way to gauge mastery.", ">\n\nThere is not a hope in hell that we'll go back to hand written stuff. That's not how technology works. As the music companies. There are better ways to show you know a subject, for sure, than the current out of-date ones. That's for sure. Have you ever taken an on-line exam?", ">\n\nI argue to let them use chatGPT as it will be their future. This is similar to my generations \"you'll never walk around with a calculator so learn math.\" The future children will grow into a society where work means utilizing AI tech to help them thrive. If chatGPT helps them write an essay, and it's good, it means they're using resources. I agree, however, that we should supplement this with actual reading and writing.", ">\n\nI would argue that most of time that ChatGPT and similar technologies is going to be an issue is in 8-12 grade and college.\nThis technology is not going away, and it's only going to improve. Personally I would treat it like calculators, audio books and spell check.\nTech kids how to use the technology properly. Sure it's somewhat handy to calculate numbers in your head, but having the ability to do math in your head does not give you much of an advantage in today's world and not being able to doesn't hurt you much. But it's still critical to know formulas and how to peace together algebraic statements and word problems. \nKnowing how to spell properly is less important than knowing proper word usage - most times you're writing something it can be spell-checked in real time. Sure it's \"terrible that today's kids...\" don't know how to spell... but it's not going to affect their career. \nEnter ChatGPT - same thing. Should I spend the time to write a white paper on the changing advertising landscape to alert my boss about the a potential seismic shift in advertising revenue, or should I ask ChatGPT to write it? As a user I have to understand its limits and potential copywrite issues, but even more importantly how to verify that what it writes is correct and targeting the right audience. Is data from before 2020 going to be recent and accurate enough for my thesis? How do I supplement the discussion with real-world data? \nThis is our new reality. We should be learning how to use the tools properly, not trying to figure out to lock it down (which frankly makes as much sense as locking down the use of calculators or spell check).", ">\n\nI think there are already apps in place that are able to detect AI generated text (Read this article).\nAlso, I think a better method would be to simply have a database of ChatGPT (could be encrypted) generated text and make it available to already existing software that is use to detect plagiarism (this is just an exemple amongst many)", ">\n\nFrankly I don’t think high schoolers and below should be given homework or tests at all. One learns magnitudes better through exploration as opposed to mindless repetition. Engage with these kids intellectually, make them free thinking Athenians, not bags of knowledge of which they have no idea how to use.\nDoes it not surprise anyone that we train people for over a decade in intellect yet hardly have any intellectuals?", ">\n\nI would argue that society would be better off spending resources on teaching children how to use this tool effectively. Knowing how to get the right answer is what matters in this world.", ">\n\nThen answer this: Well why learn math at all? Seriously.\nWhy learn he concept of subtraction let alone division? I could and society has argued that with the advent of digital calculators. \nYet we learn it. \nLater we use calculators to take the mundane and already known processes to the next level. We abstract away the mundane. \nAs a EE having worked and am working on products you may be using right now to read this, when I develop new silicon and chips I don’t break out Karnaugh maps and lay down circuit using a T square and stencils of gates. But I sure the hell know what I’m doing and expect the tools to do for me. \nTeaching fundamentals of reading, writing, arithmetic, essays, research are just that fundamental.", ">\n\nI’d argue that the vast majority don’t need anything beyond basic math anyways. \nGo ask the average adult if they know the quadratic equation and what it means and you’d probably be disappointed.", ">\n\nChatGPT is here to stay, you'd better advocate for teaching people how to make the most of it and use it wisely instead of pretending it doesn't exist.\nOne of my favourite teachers always told students to use the best tools there are.", ">\n\nI think it depends completely on the topic. In my field of study, it’s fairly easy to come up with term paper assignments that the bot would be useless for. \nLooking back at the paper I wrote last year, I don’t see how any current bot could have helped, as it isn’t able to read or summarize specific sources (yet?).\nAn example of the type of assignments we get is “Discuss the role of state capacity in x and x conflict in light of (specific research paper)‘s dimensions of state capacity - do your findings confirm the findings of (authors), why or why not?\nThis way of combining literature made it difficult even for me to be on top of it, as there were no sources that had attempted this exact combination - it has to be original. \nAlso, I find it’s the best way to learn, because you have to rely on your own judgement and there are no shortcuts, even asking the professor was unhelpful as he wasn’t too familiar with the details.", ">\n\nThis is not the best way.", ">\n\n\nThese homework rooms would have Internet connected computers for use but access to ChatGPT would be filtered and blocked.\n\nThis wouldn't be feasible, there's far too many roundabout ways to still access ChatGPT. Security measures like domain filtering are just unproductive games of whack-a-mole. \nEdit: removed all the other stuff I wrote, as those points have already been mentioned in previous top-level comments.", ">\n\nHomework shouldn’t be the go-to method of “education” to begin with. Imo Universities should focus on the integral part of education: the lectures. Tools like chatgpt can help student who are actually interested in a subject to learn more easily about it, but whether students actually learn anything or not from a class won’t change regardless of if work is authentic or copied from an AI\nSource: I’m a college student and have had experience in both supervised environments where we had to do work without the use of computers/phones and solely-online environments where many students cheated", ">\n\nWhile this could work, it is not necessarily the best way in terms of accessibility and of learning in general. \nFirst, students with ADHD and certain other conditions may not necessarily be the able to be productive at all times, or at the specific time they have to work on those computers, especially if those computers are not in an environment ideal to that specific person. It would also not be very feasible to give students enough time on these computers to complete the bigger assignments and essays. \nSecond, while ChatGPT is quite advanced, it simply works by looking at language patterns and often gets factual details incorrect. For example, with bigger coding problems, it tries to import modules that do not exist or call on functions that it has not defined. In literature, it cannot analyze texts on much more than a surface level. I will admit it can use secondary sources for textual analysis, however, it is unable to come up with a clear thesis on its own. \nAdditionally, take-home tests can be just as easily cheated on using a normal Google search, and usually test thinking skills rather than understanding and knowledge. \nFinally, essay-writing and other types of assignments are generally not ideal for learning as they are only one type of skill, and university professors are recognizing this. Not only do they not work for all learning styles, but they are only used so commonly because of tradition. University professors are structuring assignments around ways that are innovative enough that ChatGPT is unable to work on them. Along with requiring specific readings which the AI might not have access to, and citing of all sources (which has always been a requirement that the AI might trip up on), they are also going away from the traditional essay format into others. For example, I am studying literature, a relatively essay-heavy field, and in my past few courses I have been asked to analyze comics (which the AI cannot read), edit other people’s essays and articles (from past courses), create a mock syllabus or lesson plan with justifications for each reading, and create annotated bibliographies as a stepping stone to an essay. All of these not only require different skills and encourage different types of learning and research but are quite difficult for an AI to do. \nAll in all, while your suggestion is great, the very nature of the AI and the fact that it exists at all is perhaps a sign that the best course of action is to rework the way we think about evaluation. After all, if an evaluation is such that an AI can complete it without the ability to actually think (it works by using observed language patterns), then perhaps the evaluation is not ideal.", ">\n\nI bet teachers and people thought the same thing about calculators when they came out or 1990s internet. AI bots like chat GPT are just a tool.", ">\n\nAll this effectively does is train kids to accomplish goals of a type that do not exist in the real world in a situation they will never realistically encounter. A better goal is adjusting testing criteria to account for this.\nThere might be very specific sets of knowledge for which rote memorization is appropriate, and for those, the air gapped testing may be appropriate. But I believe those are the exception rather than the rule. By and large, teaching kids to effectively utilize the tools that will be available to them is what we should be doing.", ">\n\nImagine learning where the only books are hand written.\nThe printing press took out a huge amount of repetitive labor in the learning process.\nAI/ChatGPT stands a good chance of removing a huge amount knowledge labor which stands between an idea and the end product. Learning to use the AI to best effect the Idea->End Product Chain is more important than worrying about memorizing formulae we will likely never need to remember. \nThe effort to restrict ChatGPT is just education system worrying about their Cheese Being Moved.", ">\n\nThis just doesn't make any sense to me. You're arguing that we shouldn't allow students to use tools they would have at their disposal in a real working environment, and for what? Why wouldn't you want students to use every tool at their disposal? How exactly is handicapping them helping them to understand the coursework?\nA much better approach would be to fundamentally alter how we teach to better prepare them for the workforce. Encouraging collaboration and creative problem solving skills is much more practical and effective.", ">\n\nChatGPT may pass the Bar, but I highly doubt it will replace lawyers or other professionals. \nThe whole point of credentialing is to drive accountability. Anyone can study the law and cite precedent without a law degree. Actually representing a client in a court of law requires oversight and knowledge. ChatGPT isn't perfect - it will make mistakes from time to time. So who is responsible when it makes a mistake? When is a client (who is not familiar with the law) supposed to know that a mistake has been made on their behalf? For this reason, until ChatGPT is literally perfect you're always going to need a credentialed professional to review the output.\nFor the record, I think ChatGPT is wonderful. But it's a tool that people will use, not a full-fledged replacement for professionals. My employer (a Fortune 500 company) has already rejected its use for internal projects. IT has the website blocked.", ">\n\nThe kids that are educated without its use will fall behind in business when faced with kids that are using it to its fullest extent.\nYou've successfully made an argument for people to succeed in a test that is worthless in the real world. Its parameters don't match.", ">\n\nThe best way to educate children is to teach them skills and strategies that will actually serve them in the workplace of the future. \nChatGPT already has reached the point of replacing humans (See Buzzfeed news). If ChatGPT can take the test or do the homework then what value is that education going to be to these students? Especially older students will quickly see rote memorization as a waste of time and so yes they probably will cheat if they have the opportunity. Trying to force these things to be “learned” and prove that knowledge by brute force banning things is going to be a costly uphill battle.", ">\n\nWhat if we modify how essays are written by students, by asking them to include citations (which is something ChatGPT can’t do)?\nWe can’t stop new tools from making old methods obsolete. But we can focus on enhancing critical thinking of students in a stepwise manner. When a new tool is created, think about how you can adapt rather than resist it.", ">\n\nWhy not just train an ai to spot ai written papers?", ">\n\nWhat about gradually putting more emphasis on oral assignments?", ">\n\nEverything you said makes perfect sense...IF the goal was to teach children simply how to write the perfect standard essay. But that is a very limited way of viewing education and what its real goal is. The real goal of education is to teach children how to think. To come up with the right questions, not just the right answers. In a world where a \"good enough\" essay on literally anything can be conjured as if by magic by a machine, what's the actual value of that exercise now? For a very long time teachers have used the essay as a way to evaluate how a person thinks. Now that a machine can write it for you, we need new ways to evaluate how students think. That's the real task we are facing. Fuck the essay, just like we ditched the slide rule for calculators and later computers, etc. Tools change but the real game remains the same: Think for yourself!", ">\n\nI'd say the best way would be to accept the reality of changing technology and reevaluating the approach we have towards education as a whole.\nGranted, I'd say that's only one half of the picture: reassessing how we conceive if jobs and labour in the face of increasing automation goes along with that, and I think neither really works without the other.\nBottom line is that human labour is more and more obsolete as time goes on, so human jobs will be less and less in demand (I'd argue moving away from a capitalistic system is the right call, but even if you don't, automation is still an incentive).\nSince a large part of the incentive of our current education system is \"prepare you for a job\" I think the whole thing is going to fall short in light of these kinds of systems developing.\nTheres lots of people now who pursue knowledge as a project of passion, rather than a means to an end, and I think moving to a system that supports and encourages that kind of ambition is the way to go.", ">\n\nI disagree. We should learn to use the tools we have efficiently. Otherwise you are not learning for your career but for some professors ego", ">\n\nThat’s not “education in the era of ChatGPT.” That’s education in the era before ChatGPT while we figure out what the world with ChatGPT will look like so we have some idea of what to do with it.\nThat’s also not “educating,” that’s just “assessment.” Assessment is simply a measuring system for education. As long as you think of the acquisition of knowledge and skill as requiring knowledge regurgitation and skill performance in isolation and divorced from context/individualized, then you’re going to end up at necessitating a kind of geofenced, Luddite assessment model. The training itself predicates the assessment method. How we assess is defined by how we teach, and vice versa.\nThe best assessment method to gauge understanding is, and always has been, conversation.\nAll we need to do is pair assessment with regular conversation between qualified teacher and student to determine if personal comprehension is present. Not an interview, not an interrogation — conversation. Problem solving performance contexts are also great revealer of internalized knowledge and skill.\nChatGPT is a relative nonissue if your approach to assessment is at all human.\nIt’s only a problem when you’re trying to mechanize and dehumanized education. “Rigorous” does not mean “mechanical.” We are going to have to trust the professional, knowledge- and skill-assessing judgements of humans who already know and can do.\nEducation reverts to having more emphasis on apprenticeship and mentorship models, where the relationship itself is part of the learning process. \n(The “accountability!” cranks are gonna love that…)", ">\n\nI have a strong suspicion that discussions like this, while very interesting, will be obsolete long before any changes can actually be implemented in schools. In fact, I'm pretty sure schools will be gone entirely in the near future.\nAs of right now, you can be taught almost any subject by an exceptionally well-spoken, fast and infinitely patient teacher called GPT to a university level, if not higher. Try it right now - go ask GPT to explain the political situation that allowed Alexander the Great to conquer Persia, or ask it to explain the raytracing algorithm. If there's a part you don't understand, ask it to clarify. You'll be amazed how accessible it makes advanced topics.\nNow, how long before we have VR software with a realistic-looking AI teacher, with an AI-generated voice, who can do the same thing, but respond to students' voices and use body language and visual demonstrations? Five years?\nHow long after that before this tech is cheap, and of such high quality that sending your kids to school will be a worse education?\nNow in, say, 20 years, we could have an AI system that takes a DNA sample, analyses a students genotype to understand what subjects they will be naturally good at, what education approaches will be most successful, and continuously improves its model of the student's behavior by observing them. It crafts a decades-long education journey tailored to the individual, and accompanies them the entire way.\nTeachers, as far as they've existed so far, don't have a chance.", ">\n\nAre you trying to test someone or teach them?\nIf the latter, why do you care about cheating? This reminds me of the ol' teachers who used to restrict calculators because \"you won't always have a calculator with you.\"", ">\n\nYou forget that for 99% of homework students could just copy each other's work. Having the answers out in the world accessible is not a new problem. You just make homework a small part of the grades and you make sure students understand it's important to actually do it or they won't do well on the tests.", ">\n\nThere are so many people that can’t do the basic math examples you mentioned somewhere and they went to school at a time when there were no calculators.\nOn the other hand I was allowed to use calculators in school pretty much the moment I left elementary school and I am really quite good at math even without assistance.\nTool usage is one of humanities key features and trying to work against it instead of finding ways to incorporate new technology into school and life seems backwards.", ">\n\nIronically the teacher will have to use an AI to decipher the \"hand written\" assignments.", ">\n\nYou can't force people to learn.", ">\n\nWhat about teaching how to think rather than how to memorize? Just a thought 💭", ">\n\nThey need to get rid of homework, and have students do their work while they're at school. It's awful, they just pile it on, even if a class only has a little homework that day, there's like 6 or 7 classes so it's a nightmare for students. Seems like the only way to prevent cheating is have them do work in class, so I hope for the students sake, they do that.", ">\n\nI’ll throw my idea into the ring, though we’re still a few years off from this technology:\nWe should have students interact with AI tutors that can prompt them questions and point out details. Then they can collaborate on assignments, and the AI tutor can give feedback and suggest snippets. The AI can evaluate their work and their engagement with the material.", ">\n\nOne of Transformers main applications is in search. Ie you get a set of embeddings you can compare the pairwise distances between embedding and get a list of scores that tell you which embeddings are most similar to the input. \nEssentially tools like google are made to reduce the search space for a given query collect likely links and then rerank the most likely results. \nChatgpt basically does this in a more direct way of searching through a space of potential responses. Basically trained on a task to predict next token given the previous tokens or fill in a mask\nTransformers permeate everything students use from the recommendation algorithms on TikTok Facebook, YouTube to search systems in google. \nIn my opinion students should absolutely not be taught to fear these tools tho I do agree they be tested in constrained environments to challenge them. Current systems should not be used to learn unless you have a clear understanding and are willing to check every word and check your reasoning. Future systems will be much better though so this problem isn’t going anywhere. \nIf anything there should be a push to make these ideas more interpretable to a younger audience and give them the tools to navigate an increasingly complex market of ideas. They should be aware of the limitations and how when they use a piece of software their actions and the actions of those around them are influencing what they see next. \nIt should be used and taught with rigor. \nIt’s programming 2.0", ">\n\nDude no; \nChatGPT is the computer. \nDo you want to be the education system that banned the computer and then wondered why all the other education systems output modern tech workers, while your education system kept outputting chimney sweeps and car factory workers?", ">\n\nHW only exists to make students practice, and generally is worth less than 20% of the grade in a class. If a student chooses to use chat GPT to bypass it then that’s the student’s loss.\nUltimately exams are what schools use to evaluate a students knowledge and I don’t think that’s going to change anytime soon", ">\n\nThere are already programs that check if something was written by an AI or not. Also no student I know actually uses chatGPT for major assignments because chatGPT doesn’t know every text to ever be published so it doesn’t understand the context, and most of the time will just bullshit an answer that’s incorrect.\nEveryone I know that uses chatGPT for school do so for either for assignments so small and simple that it doesn’t make sense to quarantine, or they use it as a more advanced google that can answer questions more accurately than a search engine could, essentially just saving time.\n(most) students are using chatGPT largely as a productivity and time management tool rather than to cheat.", ">\n\nThis is like saying “in the age of calculators, the only way to ensure kids learn maths is to ban calculators in school”. If looked at correctly, chatgpt is an effect multiplier, learning just has to be rejigged to have kids learn to do things that they can’t simply ask chatgpt to do for them.", ">\n\nLess course work and more exams is the future in a world with chatGPT.", ">\n\nChatGPT will be a big no issue soon. I work in a research field and this was something we worried about last year. As of now there are multiple tools and even more being developed that catch the use of ChatGPT. There has been research published that list ChatGPT as a co-author, but for most research, and use by students, it will simply be forbidden and will easily be caught as well. The program does well but it has a particular style that can be caught. Again it will be a non-issue soon.", ">\n\nThis is like forbidding people to use a calculator because it can give you the result instant. A better way is to teach them how to use the calculator, because its here now and won't go away. Same with GPT. Children can learn way better/faster with ChatGPD if used correctly. Imaging having a private teacher for free which helps you learning every time of the day.", ">\n\nLet me ask you this. If ChatGPT could complete a students whole assignment, what would that student have learned from doing that assignment on their own that won’t simply be replaced with ChatGPT by a employer in the future?\nEven if ChatGPT doesn’t replace workers for a decade, why teach students skills that will inevitably be replaced and leave said students jobless in a decade?\nChatGPT won’t only be used in the workforce either. Linus Tech Tips has a video showing how ChatGPT can help people learn new skills and do troubleshooting on their own. If I remember correctly, he manages to completely build a pc by only strictly following what ChatGPT tells him to. It even managed to suggest the best parts for that computers specific use case. It was nowhere near perfect, but in the future it will get there.\nSince ChatGPT is such a useful tool in the workforce and at home, I think it’s crucial we teach students how to use it instead of banning them from it. Maybe students should be given a problem and tasked to use ChatGPT to find the solution or have students attempt to learn a new topic with ChatGPT. I’m not a teacher, I just thought of those examples of the top of my head. I’m sure qualified teachers could think of better assignments than me.\nI could see ChatGPT helping a mechanic diagnose an issue so the mechanic could spend more time fixing the problem rather than diagnosing and I can think of a few examples in other jobs as well where ChatGPT will help a worker be more efficient and save more time.\nI think, if anything, we’re setting students up for failure by not teaching them about these tools that will take over the workforce and help in everyday life.", ">\n\nYou’ll still have to pass a test. Relax.", ">\n\nIt “fairs” extremely well? Maybe some additional time spent observing ChatGPT could actually benefit some", ">\n\nThere’s just no way you can use ChatGPT to do all of your work for you and be successful at any moderately high level of academic pursuit. Not without learning the material yourself, and if you’ve done that, I don’t think it matters so much whether you used chatGPT and for what along the way.\nFrankly if you start our using chatGPT early in school, you won’t even be able to ask the right questions in the right way and include the necessary refinements to do more complex and demanding assignments down the road. \nAlso, tests are still a thing aren’t they? ChatGPT doesn’t help you perform in person in a monitored environment - not in a way that would allow you to skip learning the material. I don’t really get this aspect of your cmv. As long as tests don’t allow access to ChatGPT, anyone who didn’t learn the material is going to be exposed..", ">\n\nThere are already programs that detect ChatGPT writing.", ">\n\nThe children who want to cheat will always find a way to do so. It doesn’t matter how much you do to restrict it, it’ll just make them find new means of doing so. \nSource: I did GCSE’s in the UK, AP in the US. Trust, kids will cheat even in sterile environments. Especially if it’s a huge room and there are few moderators. A lot of us are scared of repercussions but those who aren’t won’t let anything stand in there way—region and proctoring be damned.", ">\n\nI require them to complete an outline first. Outline must be submitted to me before I take the essay. Google doc lets you see that they write it and when each sentence was written. It’s helped.", ">\n\nCHATGPT is a tool, and in some applications (not all), it can help students do their homework. Consider the calculator. Do students not need to learn formulas and critical thinking just because they can punch numbers into calculators?\nNo, math is still a skill that is valuable if for no other reason then because it trains your brain to solve problems.\nOne of the things that surprises me is that ChatGPT can use words and explain things to students even when a teacher is not available or when there isn’t one. we should consider this an educational opportunity rather than a disadvantage.\nThere are so many amazing things we humans can do when we simply have tools to help us. ChatGPT is no different.", ">\n\nYou can’t force people to live in the past. Chat GPT is here to stay. Education now needs to focus on teaching people how to use AI, and how to develop a skill that can’t be replaced by AI.", ">\n\nHow about getting students engaged in what they’re learning and excited to learn. Find what they’re good at and double down on it. Don’t make school a fucking quarantine bubble. Socialize, allow them to teach and learn from each other. Replace the potential for cheating with collaboration assignments in person. “Children will cheat if given the opportunity” is such horse shit. If somebody doesn’t know or wasn’t taught something well then yea they’re gonna look to get it right so they can obtain approval. How about teaching them so they won’t cheat??", ">\n\nThats not it. I don’t have an answer for you, but thats not it.", ">\n\nHow about just have the kids do a presentation on \"their\" report with Q&A at the end. They'll have no choice but to know the info.... which is the point.", ">\n\nWell, making an AI that detects if something was made by an AI shouldnt be hard" ]
> Yeah we call that stuff examns...	[ "/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^\| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.", ">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?", ">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.", ">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?", ">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.", ">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?", ">\n\nYou mean a grade?", ">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication", ">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.", ">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)", ">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.", ">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.", ">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.", ">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.", ">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?", ">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.", ">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.", ">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.", ">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.", ">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.", ">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.", ">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.", ">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.", ">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.", ">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.", ">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.", ">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.", ">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.", ">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use", ">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.", ">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.", ">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.", ">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.", ">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.", ">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.", ">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.", ">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).", ">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.", ">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.", ">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.", ">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.", ">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.", ">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.", ">\n\n\nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \n\nWhy? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it. \n\nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \n\nWhy? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? \nLet's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project. \n\nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.\n\nTotally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator.", ">\n\nFor the most part, knowledge workers perform a given amount of work in a given amount of hours, and the number of them hired by a company is TotalHoursNeeded/NumHoursPerEmployee. E.g. if you have 100 manyears of work to get done in a typical year, you employ 100 people.\nChat GPT isn't going to \"replace\" people wholesale, because as you say someone still needs to supervise it. But it looks to be on track to increase the productivity of programmers (can write a first draft of code and finds many of the bugs instantly). \nSame for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones. \nSo now the TotalNeeded is decreased by some percentage, let's say 10% to start. Now you only need 90 human programmers to do that same work. With 25% efficiency gain, you need 75. With 50%, 50. Etc. \nOr take translation jobs. Today, an editor spends roughly 3 minutes per word editing machine translated text, and 1 minute per word editing human-translated text. As long as editors are more expensive per hour than first translation people, it still makes sense much of the time to hire translators, because the software isn't free. \nBut the graph of machine translation \"efficiency\" is trending towards taking the same amount of time to edit as a human translator. As soon as that's hit, there's literally no reason to hire human translators, only editors. \nAnd if the editing time goes down to 30 seconds/word because of further AI assistance to the editor, you only need half as many of those.", ">\n\nThere is currently two better solutions being worked on - one of which is already being used to some degree. \nThe first is ChatGPT developers themselves making moves to make AI written works to be identified by \"watermark\" or similar. I don't thi k this one has taken effect at all yet. \nAnother is by a separate dev team that allows teachers to use software to determine the amount of an essay, for example, that is written by AI what the likelihood of any one sentence or paragraph to have been written by AI. This allows the teachers to use discretion when determining if the student used the AI in a way that they find acceptable or not. This way instead kf running from the scary AI educators can actually utilize tyhe AI with students to help them develop their writing and other communications.", ">\n\nWhat about kids with transportation issues? When I was in school I knew kids that drove almost an hour each way to get there. I certainly couldn’t have asked my parents to drop everything to take me all the way to school so I could do my homework if I forgot. Bus schedules? Do you think schools want to waste more money by burning more gas for extra routes? I understand where you’re coming from, but for a fair amount of children—especially in poorer, more rural areas—that getting to school and back is such a delicate balancing act that such a thing would just punish them.", ">\n\nI've seen a few key things from academics testing out ChatGPT (I have not signed up myself):\n\nIt tends to produce confident, convincing nonsense. It doesn't actually understand what it's writing about, and I hear it shows.\nIt makes up citations. Real authors in the field, real journals... but made-up titles. Things like that, since, again, it doesn't actually understand citations.\n\nThis suggests that, for assignments requiring the demonstration of genuine, in-depth understanding, and not merely the ability to summarize facts, ChatGPT will fail.\nA similar example that you bring up in the comments is programming cheat sheets into calculators - but for well-designed engineering exams (including the licensure exams, at least in the US), cheat sheets are fine and often either allowed or provided. A well-designed exam tests the ability to apply principles, not knowledge of equations, so a cheat sheet is harmless, or even allows the exam to work better (since people aren't distracted with memorizing equations).", ">\n\nThere are three criticisms that I have of this approach. \n\n\nShould we not teach to the environment that we live in? Yes, education often imposes arbitrary constraints like time tests but for research and reports why not let people use and work around all resources? If you can work around chat gpt to work efficiently, then do it. You learn what it can and can’t do and how to use it effectively as a tool. \n\n\nCan chatGPT on it’s own actually write a good essay? From what I have seen it can pull together a few sources. It can generally write fluff based on other things that it has seen. But it struggles to write analysis. It can’t interrogate a source or make value judgements. It could be useful for doing some filler or providing ideas but if to do an actual report, I think it would be insufficient. \n\n\nAn assignment that can be done using chatgpt is probably boring. Here I am writing an essay for no reason other than I find it interesting to discuss this topic. Perhaps, we arent giving students interesting enough assignments or we are overloading them to the point that they don’t have the time to engage? If chatGPT turns out to be an issue maybe it’s more of an indictment of the structures and norms of education.", ">\n\n\n\nhomework in the form of essays, take home tests, coding assignments, would be completed on school grounds. \n\n\nCongratulations, you've invented the \"cram school\".\nI'd recommend reading through your post again and actually thinking about the things you've said. Because essentially, you're merely advocating for the wholesale elimination of homework and for education outside of that to remain totally unchanged. It's almost literally, \"Make the school day 30% longer\".\nMy solution to the \"problem\" of students potentially using ChatGPT to cheat on homework: I don't think you need a hilariously convoluted system of homework \"boiler rooms\" redolent of national security apparatus, that requires schools to adopt ruinously expensive and disruptive technological and administrative changes.\nIt would be sufficient if we institute a system whereby teachers are encouraged to, let's say... \"test\" their students, whether by regular written exams or by talking to them in what I'll call \"classes\", to ensure they understand the material they've been assigned to learn.\nThis method ensures that students cannot use AI homework bots to coast through classes (since they'll literally be found out the very next class), and has the added benefit of not adding three hours to every teacher's day.", ">\n\nWhat about pen and ink?", ">\n\narguably I can just copy a ChatGPT output by hand. So I think that is a first level measure, but not a complete solution.", ">\n\nIt's a better solution than prison just because the curriculum can't keep up with technology.\nWhen calculators arrived on everyone's phone and everyone's pocket did you advocate for the same solution? Unlikely, so why only now with this system?", ">\n\nWell I did and I was. When I was studying engineering in the 80s we routinely could not arrive at exams with a calculator. Even then calculators were programmable enough to allow students to write cheat sheets in calculator memory.\nIt forced us to memorize equations, principals of engineering, and independent thinking. I’m a better engineer because I did.", ">\n\nSo you're what, almost 60? And you think what's best for children is to be like you? Don't you think you may be a bit out of touch?\nAlso, your view was about K12 students, not engineering students.", ">\n\nNo. As I replied, leaning on tools as a crutch all your life will limit your ability and function as a human. For example, you could argue that basic math isn’t necessary. As matter of fact that was an argument years ago with the advent of calculators.\nHowever, humans should be able to exist and functions without a digital crutch. You should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator. You should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google. There are basic elements of duration necessary since we are all still wet grey matter.", ">\n\n\nYou should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator\n\nBut why?\n\nYou should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google\n\nAgain, why?\nWhere do you get your \"should\" from?\nI have basically all human knowledge in my hand, every equation or conversion I'll ever need day to day, even every language I'll likely ever encounter. Why shouldn't I leave my brain free to think about what it wants and to use my incredible resource as and when it's needed?\nDo you envision some Saw-like situation where you're locked to a wall and need to solve maths equations at pain of death?", ">\n\nThe less you use your brain the less likely your body is to maintain it. Our body functions through a use or lose it principle. Just look people who lose movement function/muscle just by being bedridden for a long time. Our brain is not different.\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.", ">\n\nIs wasting resources on process you can deletage outside not using your brain? You free up that space to put to what you decide is important.\n\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.\n\nThe weakest man with a gun can take out the strongest bodybuilder.", ">\n\nAnd if you decide Tik tok and Netflix are important? How do you think that will affect the cognitive ability of kids?\nI didn't mention strength nor physical strength. And even then the strongest man with a gun will probably take out the weakest man with a gun.(An actual fair comparison)", ">\n\nCouldn't chatgpt (or somesuch AI) be asked \"Hey - did you write this?\" and nip this sort of thing in the bud?", ">\n\nNo, Chat GPT doesn't remember everything it's said, the potential things it could say are huge and even if someone wrote something that Chat GPT might say, it could be a coincidence.", ">\n\nWell, strike that idea then.\nStill though - there must be some way to use AI to deal with this. \"set a thief to catch a thief\" and all that.", ">\n\nChat GPT (and most generative AIs) use GANs to generate content. \nIn laymen's terms (and extremely simplified as it's above my level of understanding) a GAN is 2 AI systems competing against each other, a creator AI that creates content and a checker AI that decides if the content was genuine or made by the other AI. \nSo any automated way to tell if it's AI generated can be built into the checker AI in future versions and the creator AI will learn to avoid whichever features the checker AI is spotting.", ">\n\nChatGPT is just another mechanism for reducing the need for labor, and it's not going away. \nChildren will need to be educated in both how to make effective use of it (for as long as it's not sufficient to completely eliminate mental labor), and also in the ethics of not using it. Always forcing them to write in airgapped places isn't going to do that, it just makes them resent it. \nAlso: essay writing on a scale needed to really learn long-form writing is not very amenable to doing in an airgapped classroom, because honestly we're not using dead-tree sources of information anymore already, so doing their research pretty much has to include doing it on line. \nBut really: laborious manual long-form essay writing is going to go the way of penmanship and looking things up in a library as an unneeded skill very quickly. We need children to adjust to that reality of the modern world rather than pretending it will go away. \nPeople are still needed (for now) to do the important part of writing essays without doing the laborious bit that ChatGPT automates anyway: deciding what to write, and editing it into a convincing and well-written form. \nForcing kids to spend a lot of time learning how to write the basic bulk part of essays is a lot like teaching them how to make buggy-whips in shop class: a pointless exercise. \nIt would be better to give them all prewritten ChatGPT essays and have them learn the limitations and capabilities.", ">\n\nIs ChatGPT really that much more effective than just grabbing things off Wikipedia? I was asking it things about elections and it was just Wikipedia from two years ago", ">\n\nThe answer is NEVER to limit technology. It’s to teach the new generation how to use that technology to achieve the same goal.\nIt’s pointless to ban computers and teach the memorization of dates in history class. It’s much more productive to teach online research skills so that if an individual needs to know the date of a particular moment in history, they can reliably Google it.\nChatGPT is the same. It renders writing essays as pointless, and it necessitates the teachers to adapt to new teaching styles, such as teaching the skills on how best to manipulate ChatGPT to return the information you need.", ">\n\nI was banned from using programming calculators when I studied engineering in the 80s during exams. It forced the students to all be on the same level playing field and forced us to actually know the equations, their applications, and the processes of whatever engineering course I was taking.\nIt made us better engineers.", ">\n\nHow does handicapping you make you a better engineer? If I put you and an engineer trained with technology in the same room together, who do you think would accomplish the task faster?", ">\n\nThe handicapped engineer, easily. The point of forcing students to actually learn the material is so that they understand how to reason about the underlying processes when they need to troubleshoot something going wrong, and understand the tradeoffs between approaches and how to select the best one for the task. \nOnce you understand things deeply you don't actually need training in doing things quickly because it's immediately intuitive how to apply a technological process to save time. The guy that leaned heavily on technology is basically fucked if he has to use a technique or software that he didn't specifically train on since he doesn't have a good foundation to abstract from. It would be more appropriate to call this person a technician.", ">\n\nThe purpose of calculators is to do the menial part of the work, not to solve whole processes. The engineer that learned with calculators likely knows how to select the right process to solve a problem, but uses the calculator to do the math faster and with fewer errors.", ">\n\nAt the college level, we’re not talking about tools to add and multiply. We’re talking about tools like Wolfram Alpha that do entire symbolic manipulations for you. If I took a calculus class and on all the assignments used Wolfram Alpha to find derivatives, do you think I would have learned anything?\nThat is what ChatGPT is doing for essays", ">\n\nThere are things called pencil and paper.", ">\n\nAs I said, this is the first line defense. However as I already commented to another user. I can simply hand copy ChatGPT output. Essentially not doing my own independent research, writing, coding, and studying.", ">\n\nWhy don't you consider that research? \nThe first source was the best. It's incredibly efficient research IMO.", ">\n\nThe idea of tool removal has always been flawed. From calculators to chat GPT and beyond. If your test is so flimsy that a simple tool invalidates it then the test is poorly built. Test shouldn't be simple busywork tasks, they should require thinking, problem solving, complex thought. If it's just a game of memorization that can be cheated by answers on a paper, you've built a bad test.\nover memorization (which is what our current school systems teach) is not only unhelpful, but also harmful. We live in an era of wikipedia being a reliable source, of vast access to tools both online and phsycial. We should be teaching kids they should do the work but with the help of those tools, not despite them.\nThe main issue with your argument is that based on what you've said, i can assume you think the current school system is a good one but so many studies have shown that at least here in the US, the school systems are some of the worst in the world. It's this memorize, ignore tools, singular focus mentality that plays such a big role.\nIf we were more creative with education, incorporating tool utilization into the learning process, we'd likely have a major improvement to our educational successes. I could go on about how the education system prefers certain kinds of students over others, and how many students are left behind simply because they don't learn like other kids and are therefore punished, but I won't. All I'll say is that more restrictions on how and what kids learn isn't going to help them learn more or better.\nand in 15 years when chat GPT is a part of daily life in every single company on the planet in some way or another (which I'm beyond certain it will be), kids who were taught how to properly utilize it will have just such a huge advantage in the workforce over those who weren't", ">\n\nRather than attempt to find ways to prevent new technology from interfering with existing pedagogy, shouldn't we review and revise pedagogy as new technology develops? \nIf a chat AI program can write these things, what is the point of having humans repeatedly do the same work? We don't expect people to use an abacus when doing math, or limit their research to what's in the library card catalogue, or require printed paper publications as essay resources; we adapted to the calculator, and to the internet and search engines. So too should we adapt to things like ChatGPT, not by trying to pretend it doesn't exist, but by finding ways to incorporate it into a more holistic approach to learning.\nRather than chain kids to an airgapped room on school grounds outside of school hours to do homework that's of dubious educational value in the first place, we should take this as an opportunity to refocus schooling on in-class engagement and direct instruction. ChatGPT and programs like it are showing us yet another thing we as humans can outsource to our technology, so why struggle to do things in a more difficult and inefficient way?", ">\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\nIn addition, AI is only as good as the data it is fed. You must still be able to do the work on your own to analyze when the AI is giving valid outputs (garbage in, garbage out). This is especially true, when AI runs the risks of being owned or operated by those with a specific agenda. Can you imagine the trouble that would result if people relied on AI to determine who to vote for, but someone was able to pay the operators to have the AI promote them?\nRelying on AI to do our work for us is a distillation of an appeal to authority fallacy on a large scale (if the AI says it, it must be true).", ">\n\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\n\nThis is something I worry about A LOT when it comes to AI. Our collective understanding of the subjects that we usually classify as \"the humanities\" is constantly evolving as we learn more, and especially as a more diverse set of people are allowed to study, research and put forth opinions and arguments.\nImagine if students were outsourcing all their history, psychology, sociology and philosophy homework to a chatbot with a 1950s understanding of those subjects.\nImagine doctors outsourcing psych patient diagnoses to a chatbot with the same understanding.\nOn an arguably less \"serious\" but still critically important moral and political topic, imagine if all/most videogame art was outsourced to an AI engine with a 1990s sensibility for female characters. Same for all kinds of representation and diversity.\nHow about politics and political science in general... ha!\nEtc, etc etc.\nIt is NOT the case that we already have discovered all the true answers to the big questions, and we can merely turn to a \"knowledge calculator\" like ChatGPT to spit out the truth.\nEven if AI can pretty accurately reflect the discourse of the day, as it is currently understood and accepted, our collective knowledge and culture will stagnate if we do not actively participate in developing it, and we will all pay the price for that.", ">\n\nThese are all moralistic arguments that ultimately don’t mean anything.", ">\n\nI would say they are more epistemic arguments, which do matter greatly in the context of education (which is what the op was referring to).", ">\n\nAre any of these things mentioned actually realistic concerns? Someone is going to train an AI bot to generate 90s female art characters with big tits?\nNo. Lol and even if someone did, who cares?", ">\n\nConsidering how many people believe obviously fake stories that have no supporting evidence (and in spite of contrary evidence), yes, I believe they are very real concerns.\nIf an AI says we should use Brawndo in farming because its got what plants crave (electrolytes), we should probably be able to justify it with reasoning beyond \"the AI says so.\"", ">\n\nWho is suggesting we do anything “just because an AI said so”? \nDo you read books and think everything in it is true “because the book says so”?", ">\n\nHow do you determine if what the book/ai said is false?\nYou would typically do it through a process of research and discovery.\nPeoples' ability to do research and discovery will be greatly diminished if we rely on AI to do those things for us (which is what the previous posters were suggesting).\nTherefore, reliance on AI will lead to us losing the ability to discern if the results of what the AI is saying is correct.", ">\n\nWhat? Lol that doesn’t make any sense at all. \nIt is not like if we use AI then all previous knowledge is simply forgotten or lost. It’s all still there.", ">\n\nForcing homework at school makes that \"not homework\", and this approach has never worked. You cant reject change, it never works. Every time there has been a game changing event, people adapted. Those who tried to reject change disappeared. Horse carriages disappeared from roads because something else replaced it. Some people supposedly rejected progress, but they are lying to themselves, they still use modern tech or services at some point.\nAnyway, the change is here, and it made essays irrelevant. Time to find another way to test people skills. \nGive it a little time though. ChatGPT costs a ginormous amount of money to run and will not stay free for long either.", ">\n\nIt's not just ChatGPT, the actual innovation is not the interface but lies in algorithms that can recreate natural language of similar quality with smaller data samples. There are also OpenSource datasets like ThePile, etc. so even if OpenAI moves to a paid model (and they will, quickly. You can already sign up to be first in line for the API), there will be other free providers.", ">\n\nHaving coded AIs, I disagree. ChatGPT is a regular trained AI. The novelty is the scale of the operation, and the fact there is a public API.\nNo one ever spent that much money on resources to run and train an AI publicly. I am pretty sure google has done something similar with user data sets to make their search engine and general ecosystem.\nI wish there was a way to have algorithms working with smaller data sets and produce similar results, but it kind of does not work that way.", ">\n\nThere are already tools to identify ChatGPT generated texts. Such tools will improve as another use of literally the same technology.\nJust as teachers submit essays for identifying plagiarism, teachers will submit essays for identifying AI-generated text. \nFurther, a focus could change from grading students on what they know to grading students' ability to ask meaningful, content-based questions about the subject. After all, knowing facts isn't particularly valuable as a skill. Integrating facts and discovering valuable questions is still something that remains a uniquely human skill. And is where people will continue to add value as AI becomes more advanced.", ">\n\nStudents have always been able to 'cheat' on work done outside the classroom, by copying or somehow getting others to do their work for them, even before the internet. Yes with more advanced modern technology it is easier but this has always been a concern. \nAs regular learning environments like supervised classrooms are already 'quarantined' in the way you descibe you are fundementally just suggesting an increase in learning hours as a supplement to homework. This has been suggested by many for various reasons but it would overall cuase more issues than it fixes. It increases work load on teachers and administrators, stretching already thin educational budgets, and forces increased mental strain on children. It would limit their ability to do other recreational and out of ciriculum activities. This would be disruptive and controlling when the quantity of teaching and learning time that children recive is already considered sufficiant for a good education.", ">\n\nHell the only thing stopping me from using ChatGPT regularly for my work now is that it's always at capacity.", ">\n\nApply tests that are hand written, doesnt matter how a person obtains the knowledge, actually learning the subject is most important thing.", ">\n\nThere is no amount of ChatGPT that could influence a good old oral exam where the teacher evaluates the understanding via a little chat.", ">\n\nSo tired of this view. We shouldn’t be fighting technology. Teach kids to use the resources they have to find answers. It’s such a waste of 12 years of school, teaching kids to memorize facts and follow rules. \nInstead, every test should be open book and reward the best answers. Ask the kids to show their work or explain their thought process so we reward understanding of a topic rather than memorization of steps or text.", ">\n\n20 years ago, there were already homework communities and learn groups. Even from the publishers of school books and with free access to tutors. Ok, they didnt do the final homework for me, but gave me a great starting point.\nBeing the kid who transcribes a wiki page was already stupid back then when others could call you out:\nBut I guess the actual problem is lack of digital literacy with teachers, they're always 5-10 years behind.", ">\n\nIf you are testing skills that can be done by free tools on the internet, then you are testing irrelevant skills.\nThe best way to educate kids is to test for skills they need, not skills they objectively don't.\nI was able to witness a couple of universities adapt to tests during quarantine, and follow reports on how the new methods would be used going forward.\nThe results where thus:\nMass offline testing is incredibly cost efficient (one examiner per ~300 students), but the tests results are a poor indicator of real world performance.\nOne to One testing is incredibly expensive, but can, when done right, test actual understanding and performance.\nBoth will be useful, of course. Mass testing is most useful when used in a way that students aren't incentivized to cheat, such as when framed as practice.", ">\n\nOne of the upsides of needing to prevent this kind of tech from cheating assignments is that teachers should focus on having students be able to do their homework at school. (As a former teacher, we were trying to do this already- no more than 15 min of homework per class). \nI dont think we need to do quite what you say. We just need to limit outside electronics and have in-person classrooms or computer labs with programs designed to be AI-proof. \nI have ALWAYS believed that cell phones/internet watches should be stored in school lockers (at most) and never allowed anywhere else on campus during the school day. If anyone needs to contact the students they contact the desk who relays their message/other need. Many schools already do this.", ">\n\n∆\nI agree with this. It would help.", ">\n\nThank you!", ">\n\nThat is utterly pointless.\nThere is no reason to limit the available tools.\nThis just reminds me of the entire \"you won't have a calculator wherever you go\" argument.\nSchool should instead put a focus on responsibly using available tools.", ">\n\nAnd if students choose to use them irresponsibly, what should schools do?\nAnd can you please define what constitutes responsible use? Because despite knowing about plagiarism, people still copy and paste from the internet. Perfect abstinence is easier than perfect moderation after all.", ">\n\nJust return to hand written essays and have more oral exams.", ">\n\n∆l\nActually of all comments having oral exams compliments my post and I agree with you. Enjoy the delta.", ">\n\nIn a Faraday cage.", ">\n\nIf children can just generate work with ChatGPT, it simply shows that children are not being taught anything valuable. (Once ChatGPT responses can be generated in almost unlimited amounts at very low cost, it necessarily means those responses are of low value)\nInstead shouldn't we be teaching children to provide more valuable outcomes that ChatGPT can't replicate?", ">\n\nBeing able to do on your own what ChatGPT does with access to an immense amount of data and processing power is valuable. The actual writing isn't valuable, obviously, but it would be silly to expect it to be. It's just a side effect of practice, you spend time making things of little or no value to build up the skills you'll need to make something that actually matters. That's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\nI think you'd be hard pressed to teach a class of children to outperform ChatGPT in writing without ever asking them to write something that could also be done via AI. What would that even look like?", ">\n\n\nThat's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\n\nIt is a problem. That is why I hated math class until 2nd year of university.", ">\n\nDid you start discovering novel math results in your second year of university, or was that just the point at which you first encountered problems you found interesting, despite the fact that someone else had already solved them before? Thinking back the class you didn't hate, do you think it should be removed if someone can construct an AI to give all the answers you gave?", ">\n\nThis is only a method for evaluating students, it doesn't do anything to educate them.\nChatgpt is potentially a great tool for education but trying to find complex ways around it for homework is pointless. When testing fact retention is required using school/university computers with no web browsing makes sense. For any other test or situation it's a tool that might be used.", ">\n\nI understand OPs concern. That said, I do not think you can create true quarantine for a multitude of reasons. \nThe biggest one is probably time. I worked through high school and university. Because I lived in the middle of nowhere it was about a 30 min drive to high school and then an hour to uni. Having to stay at these quarantine zones to complete assignments would have been hell on my schedule, car, and wallet. \nYou said it yourself, if someone is going to cheat, they will cheat. If I had to do the work in a quarantine zone, what exactly stops me from doing the actual work on my computer at home, printing it all out, and then just writing that into the computer at the quarantine zone? Unless you want to try having students write an entire essay in their hour long class? There has to be a point where they go home and then this falls apart.", ">\n\nThere are already lots of ways to cheat in homework and mostly our steps to deal with that amount to the honour system, and by university level, automated plagiarism detection (which can be quite easily avoided). The point you \"won't argue\" that people will cheat if given the opportunity is probably the actual crux of what's wrong with your suggestion and the part that needs a big [citation needed]. Concluding that the majority of people are fundamentally dishonest is a big assumption to handwave away. \nIf you want an education, cheating is stupid. Ultimately you might get a paper qualification out of it but you'll have actually learned nothing - you won't hold up long against someone who has done it properly when you actually have to apply the skills. Or if you do, then the assignments weren't that crucial to the learning in the first place.", ">\n\nMany of the things I learned in school were largely irrelevant. I couldn't use a calculator to do long division. After I passed those early elementary school years I never did long division again. I wouldn't even argue learning the long division algo is mandatory. It's nice to have learnt it I guess, but I spent way too many hours on it. I can see learning fundamentals of essay writing, etc, are great, but why can't we just evolve to learn more effective things in life? ChatGPT should be used as a tool, not viewed as a detriment.", ">\n\nIt'd suggest that the best way to educate them is to embrace ChatGBT and teach them to use it well. Your method is a bit like teaching kids to do math without calculators or accounting without excel or financial software. There is some value, but it runs out very quickly and you're at a social and competetive disadvantage for taking some archane principled approach to education that is more of a defense of \"how we used to do it\".\nI'm old enough to remember when using a word processor was sometime forbidden for reasons of fairness - that seems entirely disconnected now from doing good work and it's almost hard to envision the thought process of those who thought everything should be hand written for students. \nIsn't the kid who is amazing at utilizing tools like ChatGBT going to do much better in the world than the one who does not? Your idea of \"proper education\" would easily regress back to needing to do all subjects scrawled in dirt with sticks and grunted in non-standardized language.", ">\n\nOR, chatgpt will be a great boon to the entire education system:\nIncreased accessibility: ChatGPT and other AI-powered systems can provide education to individuals who otherwise would not have access to it, due to geographical, financial, or other barriers.\n\nPersonalized learning: ChatGPT can provide personalized education experiences based on each student's strengths, weaknesses, and learning style.\n\n24/7 availability: ChatGPT can operate 24/7, providing students with access to education at any time, anywhere, which can be especially beneficial for those with demanding schedules or for individuals in remote areas.\n\nScalability: ChatGPT can provide education to a large number of students simultaneously, which could help to address the shortage of teachers and resources in some areas.\n\nCost-effectiveness: ChatGPT can be a more cost-effective option for providing education compared to traditional methods, as it does not require physical classrooms or teachers.\n\nImproved student engagement: ChatGPT can provide interactive, engaging learning experiences that can hold students' attention and foster deeper learning.\n\n--Source: ChatGPT", ">\n\nThere a lots of places where texts and exams are “open book”. The questions have to be written differently, and the point is that you’re not testing someone’s ability to memorize, but rather their ability to understand. This is a more difficult test to write, so in theory AI could force education to improve since everyone would a virtual tutor with them at all times.", ">\n\nI'm a teacher and I've been thinking a lot about this the last couple months. Changes within the education system/curriculum/syllabus/retraining of teachers will take far too long to keep up with the ease of access to, and success of, chatgpt and AI in general. \nThe only solution moving forward both short and long term is to embrace it, there is no stopping it now anyway and if we don't all want to be out of a job in 5 years we need to - \n- demonstrate feasible/moral/ethical use of such tools\n- create more opportunities for collaborative learning/hands-on/problem solving tasks and ones that increase communication skills between peers. \nHow this applies to each individual, specific task will vary and must require a lot of creativity and trial and error, but I think relying too heavily on your department of education to handle this (or most 'boots on the ground' problems) will ultimately only degrade a students experience and ability for learning.", ">\n\nI'm with you on what you're trying to accomplish. I just don't know that it's the \"best\" way. \nFor instance, how is homework performed in school superior to trusting the kids to learn the material, which would then be tested by oral exam? And yes, I do believe that asking a student to verbally explain a topic is a really good way to gauge mastery.", ">\n\nThere is not a hope in hell that we'll go back to hand written stuff. That's not how technology works. As the music companies. There are better ways to show you know a subject, for sure, than the current out of-date ones. That's for sure. Have you ever taken an on-line exam?", ">\n\nI argue to let them use chatGPT as it will be their future. This is similar to my generations \"you'll never walk around with a calculator so learn math.\" The future children will grow into a society where work means utilizing AI tech to help them thrive. If chatGPT helps them write an essay, and it's good, it means they're using resources. I agree, however, that we should supplement this with actual reading and writing.", ">\n\nI would argue that most of time that ChatGPT and similar technologies is going to be an issue is in 8-12 grade and college.\nThis technology is not going away, and it's only going to improve. Personally I would treat it like calculators, audio books and spell check.\nTech kids how to use the technology properly. Sure it's somewhat handy to calculate numbers in your head, but having the ability to do math in your head does not give you much of an advantage in today's world and not being able to doesn't hurt you much. But it's still critical to know formulas and how to peace together algebraic statements and word problems. \nKnowing how to spell properly is less important than knowing proper word usage - most times you're writing something it can be spell-checked in real time. Sure it's \"terrible that today's kids...\" don't know how to spell... but it's not going to affect their career. \nEnter ChatGPT - same thing. Should I spend the time to write a white paper on the changing advertising landscape to alert my boss about the a potential seismic shift in advertising revenue, or should I ask ChatGPT to write it? As a user I have to understand its limits and potential copywrite issues, but even more importantly how to verify that what it writes is correct and targeting the right audience. Is data from before 2020 going to be recent and accurate enough for my thesis? How do I supplement the discussion with real-world data? \nThis is our new reality. We should be learning how to use the tools properly, not trying to figure out to lock it down (which frankly makes as much sense as locking down the use of calculators or spell check).", ">\n\nI think there are already apps in place that are able to detect AI generated text (Read this article).\nAlso, I think a better method would be to simply have a database of ChatGPT (could be encrypted) generated text and make it available to already existing software that is use to detect plagiarism (this is just an exemple amongst many)", ">\n\nFrankly I don’t think high schoolers and below should be given homework or tests at all. One learns magnitudes better through exploration as opposed to mindless repetition. Engage with these kids intellectually, make them free thinking Athenians, not bags of knowledge of which they have no idea how to use.\nDoes it not surprise anyone that we train people for over a decade in intellect yet hardly have any intellectuals?", ">\n\nI would argue that society would be better off spending resources on teaching children how to use this tool effectively. Knowing how to get the right answer is what matters in this world.", ">\n\nThen answer this: Well why learn math at all? Seriously.\nWhy learn he concept of subtraction let alone division? I could and society has argued that with the advent of digital calculators. \nYet we learn it. \nLater we use calculators to take the mundane and already known processes to the next level. We abstract away the mundane. \nAs a EE having worked and am working on products you may be using right now to read this, when I develop new silicon and chips I don’t break out Karnaugh maps and lay down circuit using a T square and stencils of gates. But I sure the hell know what I’m doing and expect the tools to do for me. \nTeaching fundamentals of reading, writing, arithmetic, essays, research are just that fundamental.", ">\n\nI’d argue that the vast majority don’t need anything beyond basic math anyways. \nGo ask the average adult if they know the quadratic equation and what it means and you’d probably be disappointed.", ">\n\nChatGPT is here to stay, you'd better advocate for teaching people how to make the most of it and use it wisely instead of pretending it doesn't exist.\nOne of my favourite teachers always told students to use the best tools there are.", ">\n\nI think it depends completely on the topic. In my field of study, it’s fairly easy to come up with term paper assignments that the bot would be useless for. \nLooking back at the paper I wrote last year, I don’t see how any current bot could have helped, as it isn’t able to read or summarize specific sources (yet?).\nAn example of the type of assignments we get is “Discuss the role of state capacity in x and x conflict in light of (specific research paper)‘s dimensions of state capacity - do your findings confirm the findings of (authors), why or why not?\nThis way of combining literature made it difficult even for me to be on top of it, as there were no sources that had attempted this exact combination - it has to be original. \nAlso, I find it’s the best way to learn, because you have to rely on your own judgement and there are no shortcuts, even asking the professor was unhelpful as he wasn’t too familiar with the details.", ">\n\nThis is not the best way.", ">\n\n\nThese homework rooms would have Internet connected computers for use but access to ChatGPT would be filtered and blocked.\n\nThis wouldn't be feasible, there's far too many roundabout ways to still access ChatGPT. Security measures like domain filtering are just unproductive games of whack-a-mole. \nEdit: removed all the other stuff I wrote, as those points have already been mentioned in previous top-level comments.", ">\n\nHomework shouldn’t be the go-to method of “education” to begin with. Imo Universities should focus on the integral part of education: the lectures. Tools like chatgpt can help student who are actually interested in a subject to learn more easily about it, but whether students actually learn anything or not from a class won’t change regardless of if work is authentic or copied from an AI\nSource: I’m a college student and have had experience in both supervised environments where we had to do work without the use of computers/phones and solely-online environments where many students cheated", ">\n\nWhile this could work, it is not necessarily the best way in terms of accessibility and of learning in general. \nFirst, students with ADHD and certain other conditions may not necessarily be the able to be productive at all times, or at the specific time they have to work on those computers, especially if those computers are not in an environment ideal to that specific person. It would also not be very feasible to give students enough time on these computers to complete the bigger assignments and essays. \nSecond, while ChatGPT is quite advanced, it simply works by looking at language patterns and often gets factual details incorrect. For example, with bigger coding problems, it tries to import modules that do not exist or call on functions that it has not defined. In literature, it cannot analyze texts on much more than a surface level. I will admit it can use secondary sources for textual analysis, however, it is unable to come up with a clear thesis on its own. \nAdditionally, take-home tests can be just as easily cheated on using a normal Google search, and usually test thinking skills rather than understanding and knowledge. \nFinally, essay-writing and other types of assignments are generally not ideal for learning as they are only one type of skill, and university professors are recognizing this. Not only do they not work for all learning styles, but they are only used so commonly because of tradition. University professors are structuring assignments around ways that are innovative enough that ChatGPT is unable to work on them. Along with requiring specific readings which the AI might not have access to, and citing of all sources (which has always been a requirement that the AI might trip up on), they are also going away from the traditional essay format into others. For example, I am studying literature, a relatively essay-heavy field, and in my past few courses I have been asked to analyze comics (which the AI cannot read), edit other people’s essays and articles (from past courses), create a mock syllabus or lesson plan with justifications for each reading, and create annotated bibliographies as a stepping stone to an essay. All of these not only require different skills and encourage different types of learning and research but are quite difficult for an AI to do. \nAll in all, while your suggestion is great, the very nature of the AI and the fact that it exists at all is perhaps a sign that the best course of action is to rework the way we think about evaluation. After all, if an evaluation is such that an AI can complete it without the ability to actually think (it works by using observed language patterns), then perhaps the evaluation is not ideal.", ">\n\nI bet teachers and people thought the same thing about calculators when they came out or 1990s internet. AI bots like chat GPT are just a tool.", ">\n\nAll this effectively does is train kids to accomplish goals of a type that do not exist in the real world in a situation they will never realistically encounter. A better goal is adjusting testing criteria to account for this.\nThere might be very specific sets of knowledge for which rote memorization is appropriate, and for those, the air gapped testing may be appropriate. But I believe those are the exception rather than the rule. By and large, teaching kids to effectively utilize the tools that will be available to them is what we should be doing.", ">\n\nImagine learning where the only books are hand written.\nThe printing press took out a huge amount of repetitive labor in the learning process.\nAI/ChatGPT stands a good chance of removing a huge amount knowledge labor which stands between an idea and the end product. Learning to use the AI to best effect the Idea->End Product Chain is more important than worrying about memorizing formulae we will likely never need to remember. \nThe effort to restrict ChatGPT is just education system worrying about their Cheese Being Moved.", ">\n\nThis just doesn't make any sense to me. You're arguing that we shouldn't allow students to use tools they would have at their disposal in a real working environment, and for what? Why wouldn't you want students to use every tool at their disposal? How exactly is handicapping them helping them to understand the coursework?\nA much better approach would be to fundamentally alter how we teach to better prepare them for the workforce. Encouraging collaboration and creative problem solving skills is much more practical and effective.", ">\n\nChatGPT may pass the Bar, but I highly doubt it will replace lawyers or other professionals. \nThe whole point of credentialing is to drive accountability. Anyone can study the law and cite precedent without a law degree. Actually representing a client in a court of law requires oversight and knowledge. ChatGPT isn't perfect - it will make mistakes from time to time. So who is responsible when it makes a mistake? When is a client (who is not familiar with the law) supposed to know that a mistake has been made on their behalf? For this reason, until ChatGPT is literally perfect you're always going to need a credentialed professional to review the output.\nFor the record, I think ChatGPT is wonderful. But it's a tool that people will use, not a full-fledged replacement for professionals. My employer (a Fortune 500 company) has already rejected its use for internal projects. IT has the website blocked.", ">\n\nThe kids that are educated without its use will fall behind in business when faced with kids that are using it to its fullest extent.\nYou've successfully made an argument for people to succeed in a test that is worthless in the real world. Its parameters don't match.", ">\n\nThe best way to educate children is to teach them skills and strategies that will actually serve them in the workplace of the future. \nChatGPT already has reached the point of replacing humans (See Buzzfeed news). If ChatGPT can take the test or do the homework then what value is that education going to be to these students? Especially older students will quickly see rote memorization as a waste of time and so yes they probably will cheat if they have the opportunity. Trying to force these things to be “learned” and prove that knowledge by brute force banning things is going to be a costly uphill battle.", ">\n\nWhat if we modify how essays are written by students, by asking them to include citations (which is something ChatGPT can’t do)?\nWe can’t stop new tools from making old methods obsolete. But we can focus on enhancing critical thinking of students in a stepwise manner. When a new tool is created, think about how you can adapt rather than resist it.", ">\n\nWhy not just train an ai to spot ai written papers?", ">\n\nWhat about gradually putting more emphasis on oral assignments?", ">\n\nEverything you said makes perfect sense...IF the goal was to teach children simply how to write the perfect standard essay. But that is a very limited way of viewing education and what its real goal is. The real goal of education is to teach children how to think. To come up with the right questions, not just the right answers. In a world where a \"good enough\" essay on literally anything can be conjured as if by magic by a machine, what's the actual value of that exercise now? For a very long time teachers have used the essay as a way to evaluate how a person thinks. Now that a machine can write it for you, we need new ways to evaluate how students think. That's the real task we are facing. Fuck the essay, just like we ditched the slide rule for calculators and later computers, etc. Tools change but the real game remains the same: Think for yourself!", ">\n\nI'd say the best way would be to accept the reality of changing technology and reevaluating the approach we have towards education as a whole.\nGranted, I'd say that's only one half of the picture: reassessing how we conceive if jobs and labour in the face of increasing automation goes along with that, and I think neither really works without the other.\nBottom line is that human labour is more and more obsolete as time goes on, so human jobs will be less and less in demand (I'd argue moving away from a capitalistic system is the right call, but even if you don't, automation is still an incentive).\nSince a large part of the incentive of our current education system is \"prepare you for a job\" I think the whole thing is going to fall short in light of these kinds of systems developing.\nTheres lots of people now who pursue knowledge as a project of passion, rather than a means to an end, and I think moving to a system that supports and encourages that kind of ambition is the way to go.", ">\n\nI disagree. We should learn to use the tools we have efficiently. Otherwise you are not learning for your career but for some professors ego", ">\n\nThat’s not “education in the era of ChatGPT.” That’s education in the era before ChatGPT while we figure out what the world with ChatGPT will look like so we have some idea of what to do with it.\nThat’s also not “educating,” that’s just “assessment.” Assessment is simply a measuring system for education. As long as you think of the acquisition of knowledge and skill as requiring knowledge regurgitation and skill performance in isolation and divorced from context/individualized, then you’re going to end up at necessitating a kind of geofenced, Luddite assessment model. The training itself predicates the assessment method. How we assess is defined by how we teach, and vice versa.\nThe best assessment method to gauge understanding is, and always has been, conversation.\nAll we need to do is pair assessment with regular conversation between qualified teacher and student to determine if personal comprehension is present. Not an interview, not an interrogation — conversation. Problem solving performance contexts are also great revealer of internalized knowledge and skill.\nChatGPT is a relative nonissue if your approach to assessment is at all human.\nIt’s only a problem when you’re trying to mechanize and dehumanized education. “Rigorous” does not mean “mechanical.” We are going to have to trust the professional, knowledge- and skill-assessing judgements of humans who already know and can do.\nEducation reverts to having more emphasis on apprenticeship and mentorship models, where the relationship itself is part of the learning process. \n(The “accountability!” cranks are gonna love that…)", ">\n\nI have a strong suspicion that discussions like this, while very interesting, will be obsolete long before any changes can actually be implemented in schools. In fact, I'm pretty sure schools will be gone entirely in the near future.\nAs of right now, you can be taught almost any subject by an exceptionally well-spoken, fast and infinitely patient teacher called GPT to a university level, if not higher. Try it right now - go ask GPT to explain the political situation that allowed Alexander the Great to conquer Persia, or ask it to explain the raytracing algorithm. If there's a part you don't understand, ask it to clarify. You'll be amazed how accessible it makes advanced topics.\nNow, how long before we have VR software with a realistic-looking AI teacher, with an AI-generated voice, who can do the same thing, but respond to students' voices and use body language and visual demonstrations? Five years?\nHow long after that before this tech is cheap, and of such high quality that sending your kids to school will be a worse education?\nNow in, say, 20 years, we could have an AI system that takes a DNA sample, analyses a students genotype to understand what subjects they will be naturally good at, what education approaches will be most successful, and continuously improves its model of the student's behavior by observing them. It crafts a decades-long education journey tailored to the individual, and accompanies them the entire way.\nTeachers, as far as they've existed so far, don't have a chance.", ">\n\nAre you trying to test someone or teach them?\nIf the latter, why do you care about cheating? This reminds me of the ol' teachers who used to restrict calculators because \"you won't always have a calculator with you.\"", ">\n\nYou forget that for 99% of homework students could just copy each other's work. Having the answers out in the world accessible is not a new problem. You just make homework a small part of the grades and you make sure students understand it's important to actually do it or they won't do well on the tests.", ">\n\nThere are so many people that can’t do the basic math examples you mentioned somewhere and they went to school at a time when there were no calculators.\nOn the other hand I was allowed to use calculators in school pretty much the moment I left elementary school and I am really quite good at math even without assistance.\nTool usage is one of humanities key features and trying to work against it instead of finding ways to incorporate new technology into school and life seems backwards.", ">\n\nIronically the teacher will have to use an AI to decipher the \"hand written\" assignments.", ">\n\nYou can't force people to learn.", ">\n\nWhat about teaching how to think rather than how to memorize? Just a thought 💭", ">\n\nThey need to get rid of homework, and have students do their work while they're at school. It's awful, they just pile it on, even if a class only has a little homework that day, there's like 6 or 7 classes so it's a nightmare for students. Seems like the only way to prevent cheating is have them do work in class, so I hope for the students sake, they do that.", ">\n\nI’ll throw my idea into the ring, though we’re still a few years off from this technology:\nWe should have students interact with AI tutors that can prompt them questions and point out details. Then they can collaborate on assignments, and the AI tutor can give feedback and suggest snippets. The AI can evaluate their work and their engagement with the material.", ">\n\nOne of Transformers main applications is in search. Ie you get a set of embeddings you can compare the pairwise distances between embedding and get a list of scores that tell you which embeddings are most similar to the input. \nEssentially tools like google are made to reduce the search space for a given query collect likely links and then rerank the most likely results. \nChatgpt basically does this in a more direct way of searching through a space of potential responses. Basically trained on a task to predict next token given the previous tokens or fill in a mask\nTransformers permeate everything students use from the recommendation algorithms on TikTok Facebook, YouTube to search systems in google. \nIn my opinion students should absolutely not be taught to fear these tools tho I do agree they be tested in constrained environments to challenge them. Current systems should not be used to learn unless you have a clear understanding and are willing to check every word and check your reasoning. Future systems will be much better though so this problem isn’t going anywhere. \nIf anything there should be a push to make these ideas more interpretable to a younger audience and give them the tools to navigate an increasingly complex market of ideas. They should be aware of the limitations and how when they use a piece of software their actions and the actions of those around them are influencing what they see next. \nIt should be used and taught with rigor. \nIt’s programming 2.0", ">\n\nDude no; \nChatGPT is the computer. \nDo you want to be the education system that banned the computer and then wondered why all the other education systems output modern tech workers, while your education system kept outputting chimney sweeps and car factory workers?", ">\n\nHW only exists to make students practice, and generally is worth less than 20% of the grade in a class. If a student chooses to use chat GPT to bypass it then that’s the student’s loss.\nUltimately exams are what schools use to evaluate a students knowledge and I don’t think that’s going to change anytime soon", ">\n\nThere are already programs that check if something was written by an AI or not. Also no student I know actually uses chatGPT for major assignments because chatGPT doesn’t know every text to ever be published so it doesn’t understand the context, and most of the time will just bullshit an answer that’s incorrect.\nEveryone I know that uses chatGPT for school do so for either for assignments so small and simple that it doesn’t make sense to quarantine, or they use it as a more advanced google that can answer questions more accurately than a search engine could, essentially just saving time.\n(most) students are using chatGPT largely as a productivity and time management tool rather than to cheat.", ">\n\nThis is like saying “in the age of calculators, the only way to ensure kids learn maths is to ban calculators in school”. If looked at correctly, chatgpt is an effect multiplier, learning just has to be rejigged to have kids learn to do things that they can’t simply ask chatgpt to do for them.", ">\n\nLess course work and more exams is the future in a world with chatGPT.", ">\n\nChatGPT will be a big no issue soon. I work in a research field and this was something we worried about last year. As of now there are multiple tools and even more being developed that catch the use of ChatGPT. There has been research published that list ChatGPT as a co-author, but for most research, and use by students, it will simply be forbidden and will easily be caught as well. The program does well but it has a particular style that can be caught. Again it will be a non-issue soon.", ">\n\nThis is like forbidding people to use a calculator because it can give you the result instant. A better way is to teach them how to use the calculator, because its here now and won't go away. Same with GPT. Children can learn way better/faster with ChatGPD if used correctly. Imaging having a private teacher for free which helps you learning every time of the day.", ">\n\nLet me ask you this. If ChatGPT could complete a students whole assignment, what would that student have learned from doing that assignment on their own that won’t simply be replaced with ChatGPT by a employer in the future?\nEven if ChatGPT doesn’t replace workers for a decade, why teach students skills that will inevitably be replaced and leave said students jobless in a decade?\nChatGPT won’t only be used in the workforce either. Linus Tech Tips has a video showing how ChatGPT can help people learn new skills and do troubleshooting on their own. If I remember correctly, he manages to completely build a pc by only strictly following what ChatGPT tells him to. It even managed to suggest the best parts for that computers specific use case. It was nowhere near perfect, but in the future it will get there.\nSince ChatGPT is such a useful tool in the workforce and at home, I think it’s crucial we teach students how to use it instead of banning them from it. Maybe students should be given a problem and tasked to use ChatGPT to find the solution or have students attempt to learn a new topic with ChatGPT. I’m not a teacher, I just thought of those examples of the top of my head. I’m sure qualified teachers could think of better assignments than me.\nI could see ChatGPT helping a mechanic diagnose an issue so the mechanic could spend more time fixing the problem rather than diagnosing and I can think of a few examples in other jobs as well where ChatGPT will help a worker be more efficient and save more time.\nI think, if anything, we’re setting students up for failure by not teaching them about these tools that will take over the workforce and help in everyday life.", ">\n\nYou’ll still have to pass a test. Relax.", ">\n\nIt “fairs” extremely well? Maybe some additional time spent observing ChatGPT could actually benefit some", ">\n\nThere’s just no way you can use ChatGPT to do all of your work for you and be successful at any moderately high level of academic pursuit. Not without learning the material yourself, and if you’ve done that, I don’t think it matters so much whether you used chatGPT and for what along the way.\nFrankly if you start our using chatGPT early in school, you won’t even be able to ask the right questions in the right way and include the necessary refinements to do more complex and demanding assignments down the road. \nAlso, tests are still a thing aren’t they? ChatGPT doesn’t help you perform in person in a monitored environment - not in a way that would allow you to skip learning the material. I don’t really get this aspect of your cmv. As long as tests don’t allow access to ChatGPT, anyone who didn’t learn the material is going to be exposed..", ">\n\nThere are already programs that detect ChatGPT writing.", ">\n\nThe children who want to cheat will always find a way to do so. It doesn’t matter how much you do to restrict it, it’ll just make them find new means of doing so. \nSource: I did GCSE’s in the UK, AP in the US. Trust, kids will cheat even in sterile environments. Especially if it’s a huge room and there are few moderators. A lot of us are scared of repercussions but those who aren’t won’t let anything stand in there way—region and proctoring be damned.", ">\n\nI require them to complete an outline first. Outline must be submitted to me before I take the essay. Google doc lets you see that they write it and when each sentence was written. It’s helped.", ">\n\nCHATGPT is a tool, and in some applications (not all), it can help students do their homework. Consider the calculator. Do students not need to learn formulas and critical thinking just because they can punch numbers into calculators?\nNo, math is still a skill that is valuable if for no other reason then because it trains your brain to solve problems.\nOne of the things that surprises me is that ChatGPT can use words and explain things to students even when a teacher is not available or when there isn’t one. we should consider this an educational opportunity rather than a disadvantage.\nThere are so many amazing things we humans can do when we simply have tools to help us. ChatGPT is no different.", ">\n\nYou can’t force people to live in the past. Chat GPT is here to stay. Education now needs to focus on teaching people how to use AI, and how to develop a skill that can’t be replaced by AI.", ">\n\nHow about getting students engaged in what they’re learning and excited to learn. Find what they’re good at and double down on it. Don’t make school a fucking quarantine bubble. Socialize, allow them to teach and learn from each other. Replace the potential for cheating with collaboration assignments in person. “Children will cheat if given the opportunity” is such horse shit. If somebody doesn’t know or wasn’t taught something well then yea they’re gonna look to get it right so they can obtain approval. How about teaching them so they won’t cheat??", ">\n\nThats not it. I don’t have an answer for you, but thats not it.", ">\n\nHow about just have the kids do a presentation on \"their\" report with Q&A at the end. They'll have no choice but to know the info.... which is the point.", ">\n\nWell, making an AI that detects if something was made by an AI shouldnt be hard", ">\n\nI wonder if anyone has tried training a machine to look at assignments and give a confidence interval of the assignment being either human or machine in origin." ]
> The problem with your suggested approach is that it just reinforces the current failures of the education system. It doesn't actually teach us the skills that you will be able to use in the field. You can look up formulas for physics and you can double check online for any coding questions. Chat gpt is a tool and I think forbidding students from using it will just be a disservice to them and everyone in the future. It's not going to go away any time soon so how about instead of teaching children to cheat more effectively, we teach them how to use chat gpt to its full potential? It can speed up so many tasks to such a degree that students will be able to recieve more advanced education in the time that was saved by using chat gpt	[ "/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^\| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.", ">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?", ">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.", ">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?", ">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.", ">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?", ">\n\nYou mean a grade?", ">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication", ">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.", ">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)", ">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.", ">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.", ">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.", ">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.", ">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?", ">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.", ">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.", ">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.", ">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.", ">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.", ">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.", ">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.", ">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.", ">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.", ">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.", ">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.", ">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.", ">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.", ">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use", ">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.", ">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.", ">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.", ">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.", ">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.", ">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.", ">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.", ">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).", ">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.", ">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.", ">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.", ">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.", ">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.", ">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.", ">\n\n\nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \n\nWhy? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it. \n\nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \n\nWhy? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? \nLet's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project. \n\nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.\n\nTotally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator.", ">\n\nFor the most part, knowledge workers perform a given amount of work in a given amount of hours, and the number of them hired by a company is TotalHoursNeeded/NumHoursPerEmployee. E.g. if you have 100 manyears of work to get done in a typical year, you employ 100 people.\nChat GPT isn't going to \"replace\" people wholesale, because as you say someone still needs to supervise it. But it looks to be on track to increase the productivity of programmers (can write a first draft of code and finds many of the bugs instantly). \nSame for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones. \nSo now the TotalNeeded is decreased by some percentage, let's say 10% to start. Now you only need 90 human programmers to do that same work. With 25% efficiency gain, you need 75. With 50%, 50. Etc. \nOr take translation jobs. Today, an editor spends roughly 3 minutes per word editing machine translated text, and 1 minute per word editing human-translated text. As long as editors are more expensive per hour than first translation people, it still makes sense much of the time to hire translators, because the software isn't free. \nBut the graph of machine translation \"efficiency\" is trending towards taking the same amount of time to edit as a human translator. As soon as that's hit, there's literally no reason to hire human translators, only editors. \nAnd if the editing time goes down to 30 seconds/word because of further AI assistance to the editor, you only need half as many of those.", ">\n\nThere is currently two better solutions being worked on - one of which is already being used to some degree. \nThe first is ChatGPT developers themselves making moves to make AI written works to be identified by \"watermark\" or similar. I don't thi k this one has taken effect at all yet. \nAnother is by a separate dev team that allows teachers to use software to determine the amount of an essay, for example, that is written by AI what the likelihood of any one sentence or paragraph to have been written by AI. This allows the teachers to use discretion when determining if the student used the AI in a way that they find acceptable or not. This way instead kf running from the scary AI educators can actually utilize tyhe AI with students to help them develop their writing and other communications.", ">\n\nWhat about kids with transportation issues? When I was in school I knew kids that drove almost an hour each way to get there. I certainly couldn’t have asked my parents to drop everything to take me all the way to school so I could do my homework if I forgot. Bus schedules? Do you think schools want to waste more money by burning more gas for extra routes? I understand where you’re coming from, but for a fair amount of children—especially in poorer, more rural areas—that getting to school and back is such a delicate balancing act that such a thing would just punish them.", ">\n\nI've seen a few key things from academics testing out ChatGPT (I have not signed up myself):\n\nIt tends to produce confident, convincing nonsense. It doesn't actually understand what it's writing about, and I hear it shows.\nIt makes up citations. Real authors in the field, real journals... but made-up titles. Things like that, since, again, it doesn't actually understand citations.\n\nThis suggests that, for assignments requiring the demonstration of genuine, in-depth understanding, and not merely the ability to summarize facts, ChatGPT will fail.\nA similar example that you bring up in the comments is programming cheat sheets into calculators - but for well-designed engineering exams (including the licensure exams, at least in the US), cheat sheets are fine and often either allowed or provided. A well-designed exam tests the ability to apply principles, not knowledge of equations, so a cheat sheet is harmless, or even allows the exam to work better (since people aren't distracted with memorizing equations).", ">\n\nThere are three criticisms that I have of this approach. \n\n\nShould we not teach to the environment that we live in? Yes, education often imposes arbitrary constraints like time tests but for research and reports why not let people use and work around all resources? If you can work around chat gpt to work efficiently, then do it. You learn what it can and can’t do and how to use it effectively as a tool. \n\n\nCan chatGPT on it’s own actually write a good essay? From what I have seen it can pull together a few sources. It can generally write fluff based on other things that it has seen. But it struggles to write analysis. It can’t interrogate a source or make value judgements. It could be useful for doing some filler or providing ideas but if to do an actual report, I think it would be insufficient. \n\n\nAn assignment that can be done using chatgpt is probably boring. Here I am writing an essay for no reason other than I find it interesting to discuss this topic. Perhaps, we arent giving students interesting enough assignments or we are overloading them to the point that they don’t have the time to engage? If chatGPT turns out to be an issue maybe it’s more of an indictment of the structures and norms of education.", ">\n\n\n\nhomework in the form of essays, take home tests, coding assignments, would be completed on school grounds. \n\n\nCongratulations, you've invented the \"cram school\".\nI'd recommend reading through your post again and actually thinking about the things you've said. Because essentially, you're merely advocating for the wholesale elimination of homework and for education outside of that to remain totally unchanged. It's almost literally, \"Make the school day 30% longer\".\nMy solution to the \"problem\" of students potentially using ChatGPT to cheat on homework: I don't think you need a hilariously convoluted system of homework \"boiler rooms\" redolent of national security apparatus, that requires schools to adopt ruinously expensive and disruptive technological and administrative changes.\nIt would be sufficient if we institute a system whereby teachers are encouraged to, let's say... \"test\" their students, whether by regular written exams or by talking to them in what I'll call \"classes\", to ensure they understand the material they've been assigned to learn.\nThis method ensures that students cannot use AI homework bots to coast through classes (since they'll literally be found out the very next class), and has the added benefit of not adding three hours to every teacher's day.", ">\n\nWhat about pen and ink?", ">\n\narguably I can just copy a ChatGPT output by hand. So I think that is a first level measure, but not a complete solution.", ">\n\nIt's a better solution than prison just because the curriculum can't keep up with technology.\nWhen calculators arrived on everyone's phone and everyone's pocket did you advocate for the same solution? Unlikely, so why only now with this system?", ">\n\nWell I did and I was. When I was studying engineering in the 80s we routinely could not arrive at exams with a calculator. Even then calculators were programmable enough to allow students to write cheat sheets in calculator memory.\nIt forced us to memorize equations, principals of engineering, and independent thinking. I’m a better engineer because I did.", ">\n\nSo you're what, almost 60? And you think what's best for children is to be like you? Don't you think you may be a bit out of touch?\nAlso, your view was about K12 students, not engineering students.", ">\n\nNo. As I replied, leaning on tools as a crutch all your life will limit your ability and function as a human. For example, you could argue that basic math isn’t necessary. As matter of fact that was an argument years ago with the advent of calculators.\nHowever, humans should be able to exist and functions without a digital crutch. You should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator. You should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google. There are basic elements of duration necessary since we are all still wet grey matter.", ">\n\n\nYou should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator\n\nBut why?\n\nYou should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google\n\nAgain, why?\nWhere do you get your \"should\" from?\nI have basically all human knowledge in my hand, every equation or conversion I'll ever need day to day, even every language I'll likely ever encounter. Why shouldn't I leave my brain free to think about what it wants and to use my incredible resource as and when it's needed?\nDo you envision some Saw-like situation where you're locked to a wall and need to solve maths equations at pain of death?", ">\n\nThe less you use your brain the less likely your body is to maintain it. Our body functions through a use or lose it principle. Just look people who lose movement function/muscle just by being bedridden for a long time. Our brain is not different.\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.", ">\n\nIs wasting resources on process you can deletage outside not using your brain? You free up that space to put to what you decide is important.\n\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.\n\nThe weakest man with a gun can take out the strongest bodybuilder.", ">\n\nAnd if you decide Tik tok and Netflix are important? How do you think that will affect the cognitive ability of kids?\nI didn't mention strength nor physical strength. And even then the strongest man with a gun will probably take out the weakest man with a gun.(An actual fair comparison)", ">\n\nCouldn't chatgpt (or somesuch AI) be asked \"Hey - did you write this?\" and nip this sort of thing in the bud?", ">\n\nNo, Chat GPT doesn't remember everything it's said, the potential things it could say are huge and even if someone wrote something that Chat GPT might say, it could be a coincidence.", ">\n\nWell, strike that idea then.\nStill though - there must be some way to use AI to deal with this. \"set a thief to catch a thief\" and all that.", ">\n\nChat GPT (and most generative AIs) use GANs to generate content. \nIn laymen's terms (and extremely simplified as it's above my level of understanding) a GAN is 2 AI systems competing against each other, a creator AI that creates content and a checker AI that decides if the content was genuine or made by the other AI. \nSo any automated way to tell if it's AI generated can be built into the checker AI in future versions and the creator AI will learn to avoid whichever features the checker AI is spotting.", ">\n\nChatGPT is just another mechanism for reducing the need for labor, and it's not going away. \nChildren will need to be educated in both how to make effective use of it (for as long as it's not sufficient to completely eliminate mental labor), and also in the ethics of not using it. Always forcing them to write in airgapped places isn't going to do that, it just makes them resent it. \nAlso: essay writing on a scale needed to really learn long-form writing is not very amenable to doing in an airgapped classroom, because honestly we're not using dead-tree sources of information anymore already, so doing their research pretty much has to include doing it on line. \nBut really: laborious manual long-form essay writing is going to go the way of penmanship and looking things up in a library as an unneeded skill very quickly. We need children to adjust to that reality of the modern world rather than pretending it will go away. \nPeople are still needed (for now) to do the important part of writing essays without doing the laborious bit that ChatGPT automates anyway: deciding what to write, and editing it into a convincing and well-written form. \nForcing kids to spend a lot of time learning how to write the basic bulk part of essays is a lot like teaching them how to make buggy-whips in shop class: a pointless exercise. \nIt would be better to give them all prewritten ChatGPT essays and have them learn the limitations and capabilities.", ">\n\nIs ChatGPT really that much more effective than just grabbing things off Wikipedia? I was asking it things about elections and it was just Wikipedia from two years ago", ">\n\nThe answer is NEVER to limit technology. It’s to teach the new generation how to use that technology to achieve the same goal.\nIt’s pointless to ban computers and teach the memorization of dates in history class. It’s much more productive to teach online research skills so that if an individual needs to know the date of a particular moment in history, they can reliably Google it.\nChatGPT is the same. It renders writing essays as pointless, and it necessitates the teachers to adapt to new teaching styles, such as teaching the skills on how best to manipulate ChatGPT to return the information you need.", ">\n\nI was banned from using programming calculators when I studied engineering in the 80s during exams. It forced the students to all be on the same level playing field and forced us to actually know the equations, their applications, and the processes of whatever engineering course I was taking.\nIt made us better engineers.", ">\n\nHow does handicapping you make you a better engineer? If I put you and an engineer trained with technology in the same room together, who do you think would accomplish the task faster?", ">\n\nThe handicapped engineer, easily. The point of forcing students to actually learn the material is so that they understand how to reason about the underlying processes when they need to troubleshoot something going wrong, and understand the tradeoffs between approaches and how to select the best one for the task. \nOnce you understand things deeply you don't actually need training in doing things quickly because it's immediately intuitive how to apply a technological process to save time. The guy that leaned heavily on technology is basically fucked if he has to use a technique or software that he didn't specifically train on since he doesn't have a good foundation to abstract from. It would be more appropriate to call this person a technician.", ">\n\nThe purpose of calculators is to do the menial part of the work, not to solve whole processes. The engineer that learned with calculators likely knows how to select the right process to solve a problem, but uses the calculator to do the math faster and with fewer errors.", ">\n\nAt the college level, we’re not talking about tools to add and multiply. We’re talking about tools like Wolfram Alpha that do entire symbolic manipulations for you. If I took a calculus class and on all the assignments used Wolfram Alpha to find derivatives, do you think I would have learned anything?\nThat is what ChatGPT is doing for essays", ">\n\nThere are things called pencil and paper.", ">\n\nAs I said, this is the first line defense. However as I already commented to another user. I can simply hand copy ChatGPT output. Essentially not doing my own independent research, writing, coding, and studying.", ">\n\nWhy don't you consider that research? \nThe first source was the best. It's incredibly efficient research IMO.", ">\n\nThe idea of tool removal has always been flawed. From calculators to chat GPT and beyond. If your test is so flimsy that a simple tool invalidates it then the test is poorly built. Test shouldn't be simple busywork tasks, they should require thinking, problem solving, complex thought. If it's just a game of memorization that can be cheated by answers on a paper, you've built a bad test.\nover memorization (which is what our current school systems teach) is not only unhelpful, but also harmful. We live in an era of wikipedia being a reliable source, of vast access to tools both online and phsycial. We should be teaching kids they should do the work but with the help of those tools, not despite them.\nThe main issue with your argument is that based on what you've said, i can assume you think the current school system is a good one but so many studies have shown that at least here in the US, the school systems are some of the worst in the world. It's this memorize, ignore tools, singular focus mentality that plays such a big role.\nIf we were more creative with education, incorporating tool utilization into the learning process, we'd likely have a major improvement to our educational successes. I could go on about how the education system prefers certain kinds of students over others, and how many students are left behind simply because they don't learn like other kids and are therefore punished, but I won't. All I'll say is that more restrictions on how and what kids learn isn't going to help them learn more or better.\nand in 15 years when chat GPT is a part of daily life in every single company on the planet in some way or another (which I'm beyond certain it will be), kids who were taught how to properly utilize it will have just such a huge advantage in the workforce over those who weren't", ">\n\nRather than attempt to find ways to prevent new technology from interfering with existing pedagogy, shouldn't we review and revise pedagogy as new technology develops? \nIf a chat AI program can write these things, what is the point of having humans repeatedly do the same work? We don't expect people to use an abacus when doing math, or limit their research to what's in the library card catalogue, or require printed paper publications as essay resources; we adapted to the calculator, and to the internet and search engines. So too should we adapt to things like ChatGPT, not by trying to pretend it doesn't exist, but by finding ways to incorporate it into a more holistic approach to learning.\nRather than chain kids to an airgapped room on school grounds outside of school hours to do homework that's of dubious educational value in the first place, we should take this as an opportunity to refocus schooling on in-class engagement and direct instruction. ChatGPT and programs like it are showing us yet another thing we as humans can outsource to our technology, so why struggle to do things in a more difficult and inefficient way?", ">\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\nIn addition, AI is only as good as the data it is fed. You must still be able to do the work on your own to analyze when the AI is giving valid outputs (garbage in, garbage out). This is especially true, when AI runs the risks of being owned or operated by those with a specific agenda. Can you imagine the trouble that would result if people relied on AI to determine who to vote for, but someone was able to pay the operators to have the AI promote them?\nRelying on AI to do our work for us is a distillation of an appeal to authority fallacy on a large scale (if the AI says it, it must be true).", ">\n\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\n\nThis is something I worry about A LOT when it comes to AI. Our collective understanding of the subjects that we usually classify as \"the humanities\" is constantly evolving as we learn more, and especially as a more diverse set of people are allowed to study, research and put forth opinions and arguments.\nImagine if students were outsourcing all their history, psychology, sociology and philosophy homework to a chatbot with a 1950s understanding of those subjects.\nImagine doctors outsourcing psych patient diagnoses to a chatbot with the same understanding.\nOn an arguably less \"serious\" but still critically important moral and political topic, imagine if all/most videogame art was outsourced to an AI engine with a 1990s sensibility for female characters. Same for all kinds of representation and diversity.\nHow about politics and political science in general... ha!\nEtc, etc etc.\nIt is NOT the case that we already have discovered all the true answers to the big questions, and we can merely turn to a \"knowledge calculator\" like ChatGPT to spit out the truth.\nEven if AI can pretty accurately reflect the discourse of the day, as it is currently understood and accepted, our collective knowledge and culture will stagnate if we do not actively participate in developing it, and we will all pay the price for that.", ">\n\nThese are all moralistic arguments that ultimately don’t mean anything.", ">\n\nI would say they are more epistemic arguments, which do matter greatly in the context of education (which is what the op was referring to).", ">\n\nAre any of these things mentioned actually realistic concerns? Someone is going to train an AI bot to generate 90s female art characters with big tits?\nNo. Lol and even if someone did, who cares?", ">\n\nConsidering how many people believe obviously fake stories that have no supporting evidence (and in spite of contrary evidence), yes, I believe they are very real concerns.\nIf an AI says we should use Brawndo in farming because its got what plants crave (electrolytes), we should probably be able to justify it with reasoning beyond \"the AI says so.\"", ">\n\nWho is suggesting we do anything “just because an AI said so”? \nDo you read books and think everything in it is true “because the book says so”?", ">\n\nHow do you determine if what the book/ai said is false?\nYou would typically do it through a process of research and discovery.\nPeoples' ability to do research and discovery will be greatly diminished if we rely on AI to do those things for us (which is what the previous posters were suggesting).\nTherefore, reliance on AI will lead to us losing the ability to discern if the results of what the AI is saying is correct.", ">\n\nWhat? Lol that doesn’t make any sense at all. \nIt is not like if we use AI then all previous knowledge is simply forgotten or lost. It’s all still there.", ">\n\nForcing homework at school makes that \"not homework\", and this approach has never worked. You cant reject change, it never works. Every time there has been a game changing event, people adapted. Those who tried to reject change disappeared. Horse carriages disappeared from roads because something else replaced it. Some people supposedly rejected progress, but they are lying to themselves, they still use modern tech or services at some point.\nAnyway, the change is here, and it made essays irrelevant. Time to find another way to test people skills. \nGive it a little time though. ChatGPT costs a ginormous amount of money to run and will not stay free for long either.", ">\n\nIt's not just ChatGPT, the actual innovation is not the interface but lies in algorithms that can recreate natural language of similar quality with smaller data samples. There are also OpenSource datasets like ThePile, etc. so even if OpenAI moves to a paid model (and they will, quickly. You can already sign up to be first in line for the API), there will be other free providers.", ">\n\nHaving coded AIs, I disagree. ChatGPT is a regular trained AI. The novelty is the scale of the operation, and the fact there is a public API.\nNo one ever spent that much money on resources to run and train an AI publicly. I am pretty sure google has done something similar with user data sets to make their search engine and general ecosystem.\nI wish there was a way to have algorithms working with smaller data sets and produce similar results, but it kind of does not work that way.", ">\n\nThere are already tools to identify ChatGPT generated texts. Such tools will improve as another use of literally the same technology.\nJust as teachers submit essays for identifying plagiarism, teachers will submit essays for identifying AI-generated text. \nFurther, a focus could change from grading students on what they know to grading students' ability to ask meaningful, content-based questions about the subject. After all, knowing facts isn't particularly valuable as a skill. Integrating facts and discovering valuable questions is still something that remains a uniquely human skill. And is where people will continue to add value as AI becomes more advanced.", ">\n\nStudents have always been able to 'cheat' on work done outside the classroom, by copying or somehow getting others to do their work for them, even before the internet. Yes with more advanced modern technology it is easier but this has always been a concern. \nAs regular learning environments like supervised classrooms are already 'quarantined' in the way you descibe you are fundementally just suggesting an increase in learning hours as a supplement to homework. This has been suggested by many for various reasons but it would overall cuase more issues than it fixes. It increases work load on teachers and administrators, stretching already thin educational budgets, and forces increased mental strain on children. It would limit their ability to do other recreational and out of ciriculum activities. This would be disruptive and controlling when the quantity of teaching and learning time that children recive is already considered sufficiant for a good education.", ">\n\nHell the only thing stopping me from using ChatGPT regularly for my work now is that it's always at capacity.", ">\n\nApply tests that are hand written, doesnt matter how a person obtains the knowledge, actually learning the subject is most important thing.", ">\n\nThere is no amount of ChatGPT that could influence a good old oral exam where the teacher evaluates the understanding via a little chat.", ">\n\nSo tired of this view. We shouldn’t be fighting technology. Teach kids to use the resources they have to find answers. It’s such a waste of 12 years of school, teaching kids to memorize facts and follow rules. \nInstead, every test should be open book and reward the best answers. Ask the kids to show their work or explain their thought process so we reward understanding of a topic rather than memorization of steps or text.", ">\n\n20 years ago, there were already homework communities and learn groups. Even from the publishers of school books and with free access to tutors. Ok, they didnt do the final homework for me, but gave me a great starting point.\nBeing the kid who transcribes a wiki page was already stupid back then when others could call you out:\nBut I guess the actual problem is lack of digital literacy with teachers, they're always 5-10 years behind.", ">\n\nIf you are testing skills that can be done by free tools on the internet, then you are testing irrelevant skills.\nThe best way to educate kids is to test for skills they need, not skills they objectively don't.\nI was able to witness a couple of universities adapt to tests during quarantine, and follow reports on how the new methods would be used going forward.\nThe results where thus:\nMass offline testing is incredibly cost efficient (one examiner per ~300 students), but the tests results are a poor indicator of real world performance.\nOne to One testing is incredibly expensive, but can, when done right, test actual understanding and performance.\nBoth will be useful, of course. Mass testing is most useful when used in a way that students aren't incentivized to cheat, such as when framed as practice.", ">\n\nOne of the upsides of needing to prevent this kind of tech from cheating assignments is that teachers should focus on having students be able to do their homework at school. (As a former teacher, we were trying to do this already- no more than 15 min of homework per class). \nI dont think we need to do quite what you say. We just need to limit outside electronics and have in-person classrooms or computer labs with programs designed to be AI-proof. \nI have ALWAYS believed that cell phones/internet watches should be stored in school lockers (at most) and never allowed anywhere else on campus during the school day. If anyone needs to contact the students they contact the desk who relays their message/other need. Many schools already do this.", ">\n\n∆\nI agree with this. It would help.", ">\n\nThank you!", ">\n\nThat is utterly pointless.\nThere is no reason to limit the available tools.\nThis just reminds me of the entire \"you won't have a calculator wherever you go\" argument.\nSchool should instead put a focus on responsibly using available tools.", ">\n\nAnd if students choose to use them irresponsibly, what should schools do?\nAnd can you please define what constitutes responsible use? Because despite knowing about plagiarism, people still copy and paste from the internet. Perfect abstinence is easier than perfect moderation after all.", ">\n\nJust return to hand written essays and have more oral exams.", ">\n\n∆l\nActually of all comments having oral exams compliments my post and I agree with you. Enjoy the delta.", ">\n\nIn a Faraday cage.", ">\n\nIf children can just generate work with ChatGPT, it simply shows that children are not being taught anything valuable. (Once ChatGPT responses can be generated in almost unlimited amounts at very low cost, it necessarily means those responses are of low value)\nInstead shouldn't we be teaching children to provide more valuable outcomes that ChatGPT can't replicate?", ">\n\nBeing able to do on your own what ChatGPT does with access to an immense amount of data and processing power is valuable. The actual writing isn't valuable, obviously, but it would be silly to expect it to be. It's just a side effect of practice, you spend time making things of little or no value to build up the skills you'll need to make something that actually matters. That's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\nI think you'd be hard pressed to teach a class of children to outperform ChatGPT in writing without ever asking them to write something that could also be done via AI. What would that even look like?", ">\n\n\nThat's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\n\nIt is a problem. That is why I hated math class until 2nd year of university.", ">\n\nDid you start discovering novel math results in your second year of university, or was that just the point at which you first encountered problems you found interesting, despite the fact that someone else had already solved them before? Thinking back the class you didn't hate, do you think it should be removed if someone can construct an AI to give all the answers you gave?", ">\n\nThis is only a method for evaluating students, it doesn't do anything to educate them.\nChatgpt is potentially a great tool for education but trying to find complex ways around it for homework is pointless. When testing fact retention is required using school/university computers with no web browsing makes sense. For any other test or situation it's a tool that might be used.", ">\n\nI understand OPs concern. That said, I do not think you can create true quarantine for a multitude of reasons. \nThe biggest one is probably time. I worked through high school and university. Because I lived in the middle of nowhere it was about a 30 min drive to high school and then an hour to uni. Having to stay at these quarantine zones to complete assignments would have been hell on my schedule, car, and wallet. \nYou said it yourself, if someone is going to cheat, they will cheat. If I had to do the work in a quarantine zone, what exactly stops me from doing the actual work on my computer at home, printing it all out, and then just writing that into the computer at the quarantine zone? Unless you want to try having students write an entire essay in their hour long class? There has to be a point where they go home and then this falls apart.", ">\n\nThere are already lots of ways to cheat in homework and mostly our steps to deal with that amount to the honour system, and by university level, automated plagiarism detection (which can be quite easily avoided). The point you \"won't argue\" that people will cheat if given the opportunity is probably the actual crux of what's wrong with your suggestion and the part that needs a big [citation needed]. Concluding that the majority of people are fundamentally dishonest is a big assumption to handwave away. \nIf you want an education, cheating is stupid. Ultimately you might get a paper qualification out of it but you'll have actually learned nothing - you won't hold up long against someone who has done it properly when you actually have to apply the skills. Or if you do, then the assignments weren't that crucial to the learning in the first place.", ">\n\nMany of the things I learned in school were largely irrelevant. I couldn't use a calculator to do long division. After I passed those early elementary school years I never did long division again. I wouldn't even argue learning the long division algo is mandatory. It's nice to have learnt it I guess, but I spent way too many hours on it. I can see learning fundamentals of essay writing, etc, are great, but why can't we just evolve to learn more effective things in life? ChatGPT should be used as a tool, not viewed as a detriment.", ">\n\nIt'd suggest that the best way to educate them is to embrace ChatGBT and teach them to use it well. Your method is a bit like teaching kids to do math without calculators or accounting without excel or financial software. There is some value, but it runs out very quickly and you're at a social and competetive disadvantage for taking some archane principled approach to education that is more of a defense of \"how we used to do it\".\nI'm old enough to remember when using a word processor was sometime forbidden for reasons of fairness - that seems entirely disconnected now from doing good work and it's almost hard to envision the thought process of those who thought everything should be hand written for students. \nIsn't the kid who is amazing at utilizing tools like ChatGBT going to do much better in the world than the one who does not? Your idea of \"proper education\" would easily regress back to needing to do all subjects scrawled in dirt with sticks and grunted in non-standardized language.", ">\n\nOR, chatgpt will be a great boon to the entire education system:\nIncreased accessibility: ChatGPT and other AI-powered systems can provide education to individuals who otherwise would not have access to it, due to geographical, financial, or other barriers.\n\nPersonalized learning: ChatGPT can provide personalized education experiences based on each student's strengths, weaknesses, and learning style.\n\n24/7 availability: ChatGPT can operate 24/7, providing students with access to education at any time, anywhere, which can be especially beneficial for those with demanding schedules or for individuals in remote areas.\n\nScalability: ChatGPT can provide education to a large number of students simultaneously, which could help to address the shortage of teachers and resources in some areas.\n\nCost-effectiveness: ChatGPT can be a more cost-effective option for providing education compared to traditional methods, as it does not require physical classrooms or teachers.\n\nImproved student engagement: ChatGPT can provide interactive, engaging learning experiences that can hold students' attention and foster deeper learning.\n\n--Source: ChatGPT", ">\n\nThere a lots of places where texts and exams are “open book”. The questions have to be written differently, and the point is that you’re not testing someone’s ability to memorize, but rather their ability to understand. This is a more difficult test to write, so in theory AI could force education to improve since everyone would a virtual tutor with them at all times.", ">\n\nI'm a teacher and I've been thinking a lot about this the last couple months. Changes within the education system/curriculum/syllabus/retraining of teachers will take far too long to keep up with the ease of access to, and success of, chatgpt and AI in general. \nThe only solution moving forward both short and long term is to embrace it, there is no stopping it now anyway and if we don't all want to be out of a job in 5 years we need to - \n- demonstrate feasible/moral/ethical use of such tools\n- create more opportunities for collaborative learning/hands-on/problem solving tasks and ones that increase communication skills between peers. \nHow this applies to each individual, specific task will vary and must require a lot of creativity and trial and error, but I think relying too heavily on your department of education to handle this (or most 'boots on the ground' problems) will ultimately only degrade a students experience and ability for learning.", ">\n\nI'm with you on what you're trying to accomplish. I just don't know that it's the \"best\" way. \nFor instance, how is homework performed in school superior to trusting the kids to learn the material, which would then be tested by oral exam? And yes, I do believe that asking a student to verbally explain a topic is a really good way to gauge mastery.", ">\n\nThere is not a hope in hell that we'll go back to hand written stuff. That's not how technology works. As the music companies. There are better ways to show you know a subject, for sure, than the current out of-date ones. That's for sure. Have you ever taken an on-line exam?", ">\n\nI argue to let them use chatGPT as it will be their future. This is similar to my generations \"you'll never walk around with a calculator so learn math.\" The future children will grow into a society where work means utilizing AI tech to help them thrive. If chatGPT helps them write an essay, and it's good, it means they're using resources. I agree, however, that we should supplement this with actual reading and writing.", ">\n\nI would argue that most of time that ChatGPT and similar technologies is going to be an issue is in 8-12 grade and college.\nThis technology is not going away, and it's only going to improve. Personally I would treat it like calculators, audio books and spell check.\nTech kids how to use the technology properly. Sure it's somewhat handy to calculate numbers in your head, but having the ability to do math in your head does not give you much of an advantage in today's world and not being able to doesn't hurt you much. But it's still critical to know formulas and how to peace together algebraic statements and word problems. \nKnowing how to spell properly is less important than knowing proper word usage - most times you're writing something it can be spell-checked in real time. Sure it's \"terrible that today's kids...\" don't know how to spell... but it's not going to affect their career. \nEnter ChatGPT - same thing. Should I spend the time to write a white paper on the changing advertising landscape to alert my boss about the a potential seismic shift in advertising revenue, or should I ask ChatGPT to write it? As a user I have to understand its limits and potential copywrite issues, but even more importantly how to verify that what it writes is correct and targeting the right audience. Is data from before 2020 going to be recent and accurate enough for my thesis? How do I supplement the discussion with real-world data? \nThis is our new reality. We should be learning how to use the tools properly, not trying to figure out to lock it down (which frankly makes as much sense as locking down the use of calculators or spell check).", ">\n\nI think there are already apps in place that are able to detect AI generated text (Read this article).\nAlso, I think a better method would be to simply have a database of ChatGPT (could be encrypted) generated text and make it available to already existing software that is use to detect plagiarism (this is just an exemple amongst many)", ">\n\nFrankly I don’t think high schoolers and below should be given homework or tests at all. One learns magnitudes better through exploration as opposed to mindless repetition. Engage with these kids intellectually, make them free thinking Athenians, not bags of knowledge of which they have no idea how to use.\nDoes it not surprise anyone that we train people for over a decade in intellect yet hardly have any intellectuals?", ">\n\nI would argue that society would be better off spending resources on teaching children how to use this tool effectively. Knowing how to get the right answer is what matters in this world.", ">\n\nThen answer this: Well why learn math at all? Seriously.\nWhy learn he concept of subtraction let alone division? I could and society has argued that with the advent of digital calculators. \nYet we learn it. \nLater we use calculators to take the mundane and already known processes to the next level. We abstract away the mundane. \nAs a EE having worked and am working on products you may be using right now to read this, when I develop new silicon and chips I don’t break out Karnaugh maps and lay down circuit using a T square and stencils of gates. But I sure the hell know what I’m doing and expect the tools to do for me. \nTeaching fundamentals of reading, writing, arithmetic, essays, research are just that fundamental.", ">\n\nI’d argue that the vast majority don’t need anything beyond basic math anyways. \nGo ask the average adult if they know the quadratic equation and what it means and you’d probably be disappointed.", ">\n\nChatGPT is here to stay, you'd better advocate for teaching people how to make the most of it and use it wisely instead of pretending it doesn't exist.\nOne of my favourite teachers always told students to use the best tools there are.", ">\n\nI think it depends completely on the topic. In my field of study, it’s fairly easy to come up with term paper assignments that the bot would be useless for. \nLooking back at the paper I wrote last year, I don’t see how any current bot could have helped, as it isn’t able to read or summarize specific sources (yet?).\nAn example of the type of assignments we get is “Discuss the role of state capacity in x and x conflict in light of (specific research paper)‘s dimensions of state capacity - do your findings confirm the findings of (authors), why or why not?\nThis way of combining literature made it difficult even for me to be on top of it, as there were no sources that had attempted this exact combination - it has to be original. \nAlso, I find it’s the best way to learn, because you have to rely on your own judgement and there are no shortcuts, even asking the professor was unhelpful as he wasn’t too familiar with the details.", ">\n\nThis is not the best way.", ">\n\n\nThese homework rooms would have Internet connected computers for use but access to ChatGPT would be filtered and blocked.\n\nThis wouldn't be feasible, there's far too many roundabout ways to still access ChatGPT. Security measures like domain filtering are just unproductive games of whack-a-mole. \nEdit: removed all the other stuff I wrote, as those points have already been mentioned in previous top-level comments.", ">\n\nHomework shouldn’t be the go-to method of “education” to begin with. Imo Universities should focus on the integral part of education: the lectures. Tools like chatgpt can help student who are actually interested in a subject to learn more easily about it, but whether students actually learn anything or not from a class won’t change regardless of if work is authentic or copied from an AI\nSource: I’m a college student and have had experience in both supervised environments where we had to do work without the use of computers/phones and solely-online environments where many students cheated", ">\n\nWhile this could work, it is not necessarily the best way in terms of accessibility and of learning in general. \nFirst, students with ADHD and certain other conditions may not necessarily be the able to be productive at all times, or at the specific time they have to work on those computers, especially if those computers are not in an environment ideal to that specific person. It would also not be very feasible to give students enough time on these computers to complete the bigger assignments and essays. \nSecond, while ChatGPT is quite advanced, it simply works by looking at language patterns and often gets factual details incorrect. For example, with bigger coding problems, it tries to import modules that do not exist or call on functions that it has not defined. In literature, it cannot analyze texts on much more than a surface level. I will admit it can use secondary sources for textual analysis, however, it is unable to come up with a clear thesis on its own. \nAdditionally, take-home tests can be just as easily cheated on using a normal Google search, and usually test thinking skills rather than understanding and knowledge. \nFinally, essay-writing and other types of assignments are generally not ideal for learning as they are only one type of skill, and university professors are recognizing this. Not only do they not work for all learning styles, but they are only used so commonly because of tradition. University professors are structuring assignments around ways that are innovative enough that ChatGPT is unable to work on them. Along with requiring specific readings which the AI might not have access to, and citing of all sources (which has always been a requirement that the AI might trip up on), they are also going away from the traditional essay format into others. For example, I am studying literature, a relatively essay-heavy field, and in my past few courses I have been asked to analyze comics (which the AI cannot read), edit other people’s essays and articles (from past courses), create a mock syllabus or lesson plan with justifications for each reading, and create annotated bibliographies as a stepping stone to an essay. All of these not only require different skills and encourage different types of learning and research but are quite difficult for an AI to do. \nAll in all, while your suggestion is great, the very nature of the AI and the fact that it exists at all is perhaps a sign that the best course of action is to rework the way we think about evaluation. After all, if an evaluation is such that an AI can complete it without the ability to actually think (it works by using observed language patterns), then perhaps the evaluation is not ideal.", ">\n\nI bet teachers and people thought the same thing about calculators when they came out or 1990s internet. AI bots like chat GPT are just a tool.", ">\n\nAll this effectively does is train kids to accomplish goals of a type that do not exist in the real world in a situation they will never realistically encounter. A better goal is adjusting testing criteria to account for this.\nThere might be very specific sets of knowledge for which rote memorization is appropriate, and for those, the air gapped testing may be appropriate. But I believe those are the exception rather than the rule. By and large, teaching kids to effectively utilize the tools that will be available to them is what we should be doing.", ">\n\nImagine learning where the only books are hand written.\nThe printing press took out a huge amount of repetitive labor in the learning process.\nAI/ChatGPT stands a good chance of removing a huge amount knowledge labor which stands between an idea and the end product. Learning to use the AI to best effect the Idea->End Product Chain is more important than worrying about memorizing formulae we will likely never need to remember. \nThe effort to restrict ChatGPT is just education system worrying about their Cheese Being Moved.", ">\n\nThis just doesn't make any sense to me. You're arguing that we shouldn't allow students to use tools they would have at their disposal in a real working environment, and for what? Why wouldn't you want students to use every tool at their disposal? How exactly is handicapping them helping them to understand the coursework?\nA much better approach would be to fundamentally alter how we teach to better prepare them for the workforce. Encouraging collaboration and creative problem solving skills is much more practical and effective.", ">\n\nChatGPT may pass the Bar, but I highly doubt it will replace lawyers or other professionals. \nThe whole point of credentialing is to drive accountability. Anyone can study the law and cite precedent without a law degree. Actually representing a client in a court of law requires oversight and knowledge. ChatGPT isn't perfect - it will make mistakes from time to time. So who is responsible when it makes a mistake? When is a client (who is not familiar with the law) supposed to know that a mistake has been made on their behalf? For this reason, until ChatGPT is literally perfect you're always going to need a credentialed professional to review the output.\nFor the record, I think ChatGPT is wonderful. But it's a tool that people will use, not a full-fledged replacement for professionals. My employer (a Fortune 500 company) has already rejected its use for internal projects. IT has the website blocked.", ">\n\nThe kids that are educated without its use will fall behind in business when faced with kids that are using it to its fullest extent.\nYou've successfully made an argument for people to succeed in a test that is worthless in the real world. Its parameters don't match.", ">\n\nThe best way to educate children is to teach them skills and strategies that will actually serve them in the workplace of the future. \nChatGPT already has reached the point of replacing humans (See Buzzfeed news). If ChatGPT can take the test or do the homework then what value is that education going to be to these students? Especially older students will quickly see rote memorization as a waste of time and so yes they probably will cheat if they have the opportunity. Trying to force these things to be “learned” and prove that knowledge by brute force banning things is going to be a costly uphill battle.", ">\n\nWhat if we modify how essays are written by students, by asking them to include citations (which is something ChatGPT can’t do)?\nWe can’t stop new tools from making old methods obsolete. But we can focus on enhancing critical thinking of students in a stepwise manner. When a new tool is created, think about how you can adapt rather than resist it.", ">\n\nWhy not just train an ai to spot ai written papers?", ">\n\nWhat about gradually putting more emphasis on oral assignments?", ">\n\nEverything you said makes perfect sense...IF the goal was to teach children simply how to write the perfect standard essay. But that is a very limited way of viewing education and what its real goal is. The real goal of education is to teach children how to think. To come up with the right questions, not just the right answers. In a world where a \"good enough\" essay on literally anything can be conjured as if by magic by a machine, what's the actual value of that exercise now? For a very long time teachers have used the essay as a way to evaluate how a person thinks. Now that a machine can write it for you, we need new ways to evaluate how students think. That's the real task we are facing. Fuck the essay, just like we ditched the slide rule for calculators and later computers, etc. Tools change but the real game remains the same: Think for yourself!", ">\n\nI'd say the best way would be to accept the reality of changing technology and reevaluating the approach we have towards education as a whole.\nGranted, I'd say that's only one half of the picture: reassessing how we conceive if jobs and labour in the face of increasing automation goes along with that, and I think neither really works without the other.\nBottom line is that human labour is more and more obsolete as time goes on, so human jobs will be less and less in demand (I'd argue moving away from a capitalistic system is the right call, but even if you don't, automation is still an incentive).\nSince a large part of the incentive of our current education system is \"prepare you for a job\" I think the whole thing is going to fall short in light of these kinds of systems developing.\nTheres lots of people now who pursue knowledge as a project of passion, rather than a means to an end, and I think moving to a system that supports and encourages that kind of ambition is the way to go.", ">\n\nI disagree. We should learn to use the tools we have efficiently. Otherwise you are not learning for your career but for some professors ego", ">\n\nThat’s not “education in the era of ChatGPT.” That’s education in the era before ChatGPT while we figure out what the world with ChatGPT will look like so we have some idea of what to do with it.\nThat’s also not “educating,” that’s just “assessment.” Assessment is simply a measuring system for education. As long as you think of the acquisition of knowledge and skill as requiring knowledge regurgitation and skill performance in isolation and divorced from context/individualized, then you’re going to end up at necessitating a kind of geofenced, Luddite assessment model. The training itself predicates the assessment method. How we assess is defined by how we teach, and vice versa.\nThe best assessment method to gauge understanding is, and always has been, conversation.\nAll we need to do is pair assessment with regular conversation between qualified teacher and student to determine if personal comprehension is present. Not an interview, not an interrogation — conversation. Problem solving performance contexts are also great revealer of internalized knowledge and skill.\nChatGPT is a relative nonissue if your approach to assessment is at all human.\nIt’s only a problem when you’re trying to mechanize and dehumanized education. “Rigorous” does not mean “mechanical.” We are going to have to trust the professional, knowledge- and skill-assessing judgements of humans who already know and can do.\nEducation reverts to having more emphasis on apprenticeship and mentorship models, where the relationship itself is part of the learning process. \n(The “accountability!” cranks are gonna love that…)", ">\n\nI have a strong suspicion that discussions like this, while very interesting, will be obsolete long before any changes can actually be implemented in schools. In fact, I'm pretty sure schools will be gone entirely in the near future.\nAs of right now, you can be taught almost any subject by an exceptionally well-spoken, fast and infinitely patient teacher called GPT to a university level, if not higher. Try it right now - go ask GPT to explain the political situation that allowed Alexander the Great to conquer Persia, or ask it to explain the raytracing algorithm. If there's a part you don't understand, ask it to clarify. You'll be amazed how accessible it makes advanced topics.\nNow, how long before we have VR software with a realistic-looking AI teacher, with an AI-generated voice, who can do the same thing, but respond to students' voices and use body language and visual demonstrations? Five years?\nHow long after that before this tech is cheap, and of such high quality that sending your kids to school will be a worse education?\nNow in, say, 20 years, we could have an AI system that takes a DNA sample, analyses a students genotype to understand what subjects they will be naturally good at, what education approaches will be most successful, and continuously improves its model of the student's behavior by observing them. It crafts a decades-long education journey tailored to the individual, and accompanies them the entire way.\nTeachers, as far as they've existed so far, don't have a chance.", ">\n\nAre you trying to test someone or teach them?\nIf the latter, why do you care about cheating? This reminds me of the ol' teachers who used to restrict calculators because \"you won't always have a calculator with you.\"", ">\n\nYou forget that for 99% of homework students could just copy each other's work. Having the answers out in the world accessible is not a new problem. You just make homework a small part of the grades and you make sure students understand it's important to actually do it or they won't do well on the tests.", ">\n\nThere are so many people that can’t do the basic math examples you mentioned somewhere and they went to school at a time when there were no calculators.\nOn the other hand I was allowed to use calculators in school pretty much the moment I left elementary school and I am really quite good at math even without assistance.\nTool usage is one of humanities key features and trying to work against it instead of finding ways to incorporate new technology into school and life seems backwards.", ">\n\nIronically the teacher will have to use an AI to decipher the \"hand written\" assignments.", ">\n\nYou can't force people to learn.", ">\n\nWhat about teaching how to think rather than how to memorize? Just a thought 💭", ">\n\nThey need to get rid of homework, and have students do their work while they're at school. It's awful, they just pile it on, even if a class only has a little homework that day, there's like 6 or 7 classes so it's a nightmare for students. Seems like the only way to prevent cheating is have them do work in class, so I hope for the students sake, they do that.", ">\n\nI’ll throw my idea into the ring, though we’re still a few years off from this technology:\nWe should have students interact with AI tutors that can prompt them questions and point out details. Then they can collaborate on assignments, and the AI tutor can give feedback and suggest snippets. The AI can evaluate their work and their engagement with the material.", ">\n\nOne of Transformers main applications is in search. Ie you get a set of embeddings you can compare the pairwise distances between embedding and get a list of scores that tell you which embeddings are most similar to the input. \nEssentially tools like google are made to reduce the search space for a given query collect likely links and then rerank the most likely results. \nChatgpt basically does this in a more direct way of searching through a space of potential responses. Basically trained on a task to predict next token given the previous tokens or fill in a mask\nTransformers permeate everything students use from the recommendation algorithms on TikTok Facebook, YouTube to search systems in google. \nIn my opinion students should absolutely not be taught to fear these tools tho I do agree they be tested in constrained environments to challenge them. Current systems should not be used to learn unless you have a clear understanding and are willing to check every word and check your reasoning. Future systems will be much better though so this problem isn’t going anywhere. \nIf anything there should be a push to make these ideas more interpretable to a younger audience and give them the tools to navigate an increasingly complex market of ideas. They should be aware of the limitations and how when they use a piece of software their actions and the actions of those around them are influencing what they see next. \nIt should be used and taught with rigor. \nIt’s programming 2.0", ">\n\nDude no; \nChatGPT is the computer. \nDo you want to be the education system that banned the computer and then wondered why all the other education systems output modern tech workers, while your education system kept outputting chimney sweeps and car factory workers?", ">\n\nHW only exists to make students practice, and generally is worth less than 20% of the grade in a class. If a student chooses to use chat GPT to bypass it then that’s the student’s loss.\nUltimately exams are what schools use to evaluate a students knowledge and I don’t think that’s going to change anytime soon", ">\n\nThere are already programs that check if something was written by an AI or not. Also no student I know actually uses chatGPT for major assignments because chatGPT doesn’t know every text to ever be published so it doesn’t understand the context, and most of the time will just bullshit an answer that’s incorrect.\nEveryone I know that uses chatGPT for school do so for either for assignments so small and simple that it doesn’t make sense to quarantine, or they use it as a more advanced google that can answer questions more accurately than a search engine could, essentially just saving time.\n(most) students are using chatGPT largely as a productivity and time management tool rather than to cheat.", ">\n\nThis is like saying “in the age of calculators, the only way to ensure kids learn maths is to ban calculators in school”. If looked at correctly, chatgpt is an effect multiplier, learning just has to be rejigged to have kids learn to do things that they can’t simply ask chatgpt to do for them.", ">\n\nLess course work and more exams is the future in a world with chatGPT.", ">\n\nChatGPT will be a big no issue soon. I work in a research field and this was something we worried about last year. As of now there are multiple tools and even more being developed that catch the use of ChatGPT. There has been research published that list ChatGPT as a co-author, but for most research, and use by students, it will simply be forbidden and will easily be caught as well. The program does well but it has a particular style that can be caught. Again it will be a non-issue soon.", ">\n\nThis is like forbidding people to use a calculator because it can give you the result instant. A better way is to teach them how to use the calculator, because its here now and won't go away. Same with GPT. Children can learn way better/faster with ChatGPD if used correctly. Imaging having a private teacher for free which helps you learning every time of the day.", ">\n\nLet me ask you this. If ChatGPT could complete a students whole assignment, what would that student have learned from doing that assignment on their own that won’t simply be replaced with ChatGPT by a employer in the future?\nEven if ChatGPT doesn’t replace workers for a decade, why teach students skills that will inevitably be replaced and leave said students jobless in a decade?\nChatGPT won’t only be used in the workforce either. Linus Tech Tips has a video showing how ChatGPT can help people learn new skills and do troubleshooting on their own. If I remember correctly, he manages to completely build a pc by only strictly following what ChatGPT tells him to. It even managed to suggest the best parts for that computers specific use case. It was nowhere near perfect, but in the future it will get there.\nSince ChatGPT is such a useful tool in the workforce and at home, I think it’s crucial we teach students how to use it instead of banning them from it. Maybe students should be given a problem and tasked to use ChatGPT to find the solution or have students attempt to learn a new topic with ChatGPT. I’m not a teacher, I just thought of those examples of the top of my head. I’m sure qualified teachers could think of better assignments than me.\nI could see ChatGPT helping a mechanic diagnose an issue so the mechanic could spend more time fixing the problem rather than diagnosing and I can think of a few examples in other jobs as well where ChatGPT will help a worker be more efficient and save more time.\nI think, if anything, we’re setting students up for failure by not teaching them about these tools that will take over the workforce and help in everyday life.", ">\n\nYou’ll still have to pass a test. Relax.", ">\n\nIt “fairs” extremely well? Maybe some additional time spent observing ChatGPT could actually benefit some", ">\n\nThere’s just no way you can use ChatGPT to do all of your work for you and be successful at any moderately high level of academic pursuit. Not without learning the material yourself, and if you’ve done that, I don’t think it matters so much whether you used chatGPT and for what along the way.\nFrankly if you start our using chatGPT early in school, you won’t even be able to ask the right questions in the right way and include the necessary refinements to do more complex and demanding assignments down the road. \nAlso, tests are still a thing aren’t they? ChatGPT doesn’t help you perform in person in a monitored environment - not in a way that would allow you to skip learning the material. I don’t really get this aspect of your cmv. As long as tests don’t allow access to ChatGPT, anyone who didn’t learn the material is going to be exposed..", ">\n\nThere are already programs that detect ChatGPT writing.", ">\n\nThe children who want to cheat will always find a way to do so. It doesn’t matter how much you do to restrict it, it’ll just make them find new means of doing so. \nSource: I did GCSE’s in the UK, AP in the US. Trust, kids will cheat even in sterile environments. Especially if it’s a huge room and there are few moderators. A lot of us are scared of repercussions but those who aren’t won’t let anything stand in there way—region and proctoring be damned.", ">\n\nI require them to complete an outline first. Outline must be submitted to me before I take the essay. Google doc lets you see that they write it and when each sentence was written. It’s helped.", ">\n\nCHATGPT is a tool, and in some applications (not all), it can help students do their homework. Consider the calculator. Do students not need to learn formulas and critical thinking just because they can punch numbers into calculators?\nNo, math is still a skill that is valuable if for no other reason then because it trains your brain to solve problems.\nOne of the things that surprises me is that ChatGPT can use words and explain things to students even when a teacher is not available or when there isn’t one. we should consider this an educational opportunity rather than a disadvantage.\nThere are so many amazing things we humans can do when we simply have tools to help us. ChatGPT is no different.", ">\n\nYou can’t force people to live in the past. Chat GPT is here to stay. Education now needs to focus on teaching people how to use AI, and how to develop a skill that can’t be replaced by AI.", ">\n\nHow about getting students engaged in what they’re learning and excited to learn. Find what they’re good at and double down on it. Don’t make school a fucking quarantine bubble. Socialize, allow them to teach and learn from each other. Replace the potential for cheating with collaboration assignments in person. “Children will cheat if given the opportunity” is such horse shit. If somebody doesn’t know or wasn’t taught something well then yea they’re gonna look to get it right so they can obtain approval. How about teaching them so they won’t cheat??", ">\n\nThats not it. I don’t have an answer for you, but thats not it.", ">\n\nHow about just have the kids do a presentation on \"their\" report with Q&A at the end. They'll have no choice but to know the info.... which is the point.", ">\n\nWell, making an AI that detects if something was made by an AI shouldnt be hard", ">\n\nI wonder if anyone has tried training a machine to look at assignments and give a confidence interval of the assignment being either human or machine in origin.", ">\n\nYeah we call that stuff examns..." ]
> I mean, there are plenty of good reasons already said, but wouldn't it just be easy to cheat. You get home, ask Chat.gpt for a result, print it out. Bring it with you to the school quarantine, copy it into the computer. (Unless you would like a full strip search of the students upon entering, which is wrong in so many ways)	[ "/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^\| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.", ">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?", ">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.", ">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?", ">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.", ">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?", ">\n\nYou mean a grade?", ">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication", ">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.", ">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)", ">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.", ">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.", ">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.", ">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.", ">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?", ">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.", ">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.", ">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.", ">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.", ">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.", ">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.", ">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.", ">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.", ">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.", ">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.", ">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.", ">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.", ">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.", ">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use", ">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.", ">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.", ">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.", ">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.", ">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.", ">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.", ">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.", ">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).", ">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.", ">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.", ">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.", ">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.", ">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.", ">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.", ">\n\n\nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \n\nWhy? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it. \n\nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \n\nWhy? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? \nLet's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project. \n\nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.\n\nTotally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator.", ">\n\nFor the most part, knowledge workers perform a given amount of work in a given amount of hours, and the number of them hired by a company is TotalHoursNeeded/NumHoursPerEmployee. E.g. if you have 100 manyears of work to get done in a typical year, you employ 100 people.\nChat GPT isn't going to \"replace\" people wholesale, because as you say someone still needs to supervise it. But it looks to be on track to increase the productivity of programmers (can write a first draft of code and finds many of the bugs instantly). \nSame for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones. \nSo now the TotalNeeded is decreased by some percentage, let's say 10% to start. Now you only need 90 human programmers to do that same work. With 25% efficiency gain, you need 75. With 50%, 50. Etc. \nOr take translation jobs. Today, an editor spends roughly 3 minutes per word editing machine translated text, and 1 minute per word editing human-translated text. As long as editors are more expensive per hour than first translation people, it still makes sense much of the time to hire translators, because the software isn't free. \nBut the graph of machine translation \"efficiency\" is trending towards taking the same amount of time to edit as a human translator. As soon as that's hit, there's literally no reason to hire human translators, only editors. \nAnd if the editing time goes down to 30 seconds/word because of further AI assistance to the editor, you only need half as many of those.", ">\n\nThere is currently two better solutions being worked on - one of which is already being used to some degree. \nThe first is ChatGPT developers themselves making moves to make AI written works to be identified by \"watermark\" or similar. I don't thi k this one has taken effect at all yet. \nAnother is by a separate dev team that allows teachers to use software to determine the amount of an essay, for example, that is written by AI what the likelihood of any one sentence or paragraph to have been written by AI. This allows the teachers to use discretion when determining if the student used the AI in a way that they find acceptable or not. This way instead kf running from the scary AI educators can actually utilize tyhe AI with students to help them develop their writing and other communications.", ">\n\nWhat about kids with transportation issues? When I was in school I knew kids that drove almost an hour each way to get there. I certainly couldn’t have asked my parents to drop everything to take me all the way to school so I could do my homework if I forgot. Bus schedules? Do you think schools want to waste more money by burning more gas for extra routes? I understand where you’re coming from, but for a fair amount of children—especially in poorer, more rural areas—that getting to school and back is such a delicate balancing act that such a thing would just punish them.", ">\n\nI've seen a few key things from academics testing out ChatGPT (I have not signed up myself):\n\nIt tends to produce confident, convincing nonsense. It doesn't actually understand what it's writing about, and I hear it shows.\nIt makes up citations. Real authors in the field, real journals... but made-up titles. Things like that, since, again, it doesn't actually understand citations.\n\nThis suggests that, for assignments requiring the demonstration of genuine, in-depth understanding, and not merely the ability to summarize facts, ChatGPT will fail.\nA similar example that you bring up in the comments is programming cheat sheets into calculators - but for well-designed engineering exams (including the licensure exams, at least in the US), cheat sheets are fine and often either allowed or provided. A well-designed exam tests the ability to apply principles, not knowledge of equations, so a cheat sheet is harmless, or even allows the exam to work better (since people aren't distracted with memorizing equations).", ">\n\nThere are three criticisms that I have of this approach. \n\n\nShould we not teach to the environment that we live in? Yes, education often imposes arbitrary constraints like time tests but for research and reports why not let people use and work around all resources? If you can work around chat gpt to work efficiently, then do it. You learn what it can and can’t do and how to use it effectively as a tool. \n\n\nCan chatGPT on it’s own actually write a good essay? From what I have seen it can pull together a few sources. It can generally write fluff based on other things that it has seen. But it struggles to write analysis. It can’t interrogate a source or make value judgements. It could be useful for doing some filler or providing ideas but if to do an actual report, I think it would be insufficient. \n\n\nAn assignment that can be done using chatgpt is probably boring. Here I am writing an essay for no reason other than I find it interesting to discuss this topic. Perhaps, we arent giving students interesting enough assignments or we are overloading them to the point that they don’t have the time to engage? If chatGPT turns out to be an issue maybe it’s more of an indictment of the structures and norms of education.", ">\n\n\n\nhomework in the form of essays, take home tests, coding assignments, would be completed on school grounds. \n\n\nCongratulations, you've invented the \"cram school\".\nI'd recommend reading through your post again and actually thinking about the things you've said. Because essentially, you're merely advocating for the wholesale elimination of homework and for education outside of that to remain totally unchanged. It's almost literally, \"Make the school day 30% longer\".\nMy solution to the \"problem\" of students potentially using ChatGPT to cheat on homework: I don't think you need a hilariously convoluted system of homework \"boiler rooms\" redolent of national security apparatus, that requires schools to adopt ruinously expensive and disruptive technological and administrative changes.\nIt would be sufficient if we institute a system whereby teachers are encouraged to, let's say... \"test\" their students, whether by regular written exams or by talking to them in what I'll call \"classes\", to ensure they understand the material they've been assigned to learn.\nThis method ensures that students cannot use AI homework bots to coast through classes (since they'll literally be found out the very next class), and has the added benefit of not adding three hours to every teacher's day.", ">\n\nWhat about pen and ink?", ">\n\narguably I can just copy a ChatGPT output by hand. So I think that is a first level measure, but not a complete solution.", ">\n\nIt's a better solution than prison just because the curriculum can't keep up with technology.\nWhen calculators arrived on everyone's phone and everyone's pocket did you advocate for the same solution? Unlikely, so why only now with this system?", ">\n\nWell I did and I was. When I was studying engineering in the 80s we routinely could not arrive at exams with a calculator. Even then calculators were programmable enough to allow students to write cheat sheets in calculator memory.\nIt forced us to memorize equations, principals of engineering, and independent thinking. I’m a better engineer because I did.", ">\n\nSo you're what, almost 60? And you think what's best for children is to be like you? Don't you think you may be a bit out of touch?\nAlso, your view was about K12 students, not engineering students.", ">\n\nNo. As I replied, leaning on tools as a crutch all your life will limit your ability and function as a human. For example, you could argue that basic math isn’t necessary. As matter of fact that was an argument years ago with the advent of calculators.\nHowever, humans should be able to exist and functions without a digital crutch. You should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator. You should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google. There are basic elements of duration necessary since we are all still wet grey matter.", ">\n\n\nYou should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator\n\nBut why?\n\nYou should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google\n\nAgain, why?\nWhere do you get your \"should\" from?\nI have basically all human knowledge in my hand, every equation or conversion I'll ever need day to day, even every language I'll likely ever encounter. Why shouldn't I leave my brain free to think about what it wants and to use my incredible resource as and when it's needed?\nDo you envision some Saw-like situation where you're locked to a wall and need to solve maths equations at pain of death?", ">\n\nThe less you use your brain the less likely your body is to maintain it. Our body functions through a use or lose it principle. Just look people who lose movement function/muscle just by being bedridden for a long time. Our brain is not different.\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.", ">\n\nIs wasting resources on process you can deletage outside not using your brain? You free up that space to put to what you decide is important.\n\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.\n\nThe weakest man with a gun can take out the strongest bodybuilder.", ">\n\nAnd if you decide Tik tok and Netflix are important? How do you think that will affect the cognitive ability of kids?\nI didn't mention strength nor physical strength. And even then the strongest man with a gun will probably take out the weakest man with a gun.(An actual fair comparison)", ">\n\nCouldn't chatgpt (or somesuch AI) be asked \"Hey - did you write this?\" and nip this sort of thing in the bud?", ">\n\nNo, Chat GPT doesn't remember everything it's said, the potential things it could say are huge and even if someone wrote something that Chat GPT might say, it could be a coincidence.", ">\n\nWell, strike that idea then.\nStill though - there must be some way to use AI to deal with this. \"set a thief to catch a thief\" and all that.", ">\n\nChat GPT (and most generative AIs) use GANs to generate content. \nIn laymen's terms (and extremely simplified as it's above my level of understanding) a GAN is 2 AI systems competing against each other, a creator AI that creates content and a checker AI that decides if the content was genuine or made by the other AI. \nSo any automated way to tell if it's AI generated can be built into the checker AI in future versions and the creator AI will learn to avoid whichever features the checker AI is spotting.", ">\n\nChatGPT is just another mechanism for reducing the need for labor, and it's not going away. \nChildren will need to be educated in both how to make effective use of it (for as long as it's not sufficient to completely eliminate mental labor), and also in the ethics of not using it. Always forcing them to write in airgapped places isn't going to do that, it just makes them resent it. \nAlso: essay writing on a scale needed to really learn long-form writing is not very amenable to doing in an airgapped classroom, because honestly we're not using dead-tree sources of information anymore already, so doing their research pretty much has to include doing it on line. \nBut really: laborious manual long-form essay writing is going to go the way of penmanship and looking things up in a library as an unneeded skill very quickly. We need children to adjust to that reality of the modern world rather than pretending it will go away. \nPeople are still needed (for now) to do the important part of writing essays without doing the laborious bit that ChatGPT automates anyway: deciding what to write, and editing it into a convincing and well-written form. \nForcing kids to spend a lot of time learning how to write the basic bulk part of essays is a lot like teaching them how to make buggy-whips in shop class: a pointless exercise. \nIt would be better to give them all prewritten ChatGPT essays and have them learn the limitations and capabilities.", ">\n\nIs ChatGPT really that much more effective than just grabbing things off Wikipedia? I was asking it things about elections and it was just Wikipedia from two years ago", ">\n\nThe answer is NEVER to limit technology. It’s to teach the new generation how to use that technology to achieve the same goal.\nIt’s pointless to ban computers and teach the memorization of dates in history class. It’s much more productive to teach online research skills so that if an individual needs to know the date of a particular moment in history, they can reliably Google it.\nChatGPT is the same. It renders writing essays as pointless, and it necessitates the teachers to adapt to new teaching styles, such as teaching the skills on how best to manipulate ChatGPT to return the information you need.", ">\n\nI was banned from using programming calculators when I studied engineering in the 80s during exams. It forced the students to all be on the same level playing field and forced us to actually know the equations, their applications, and the processes of whatever engineering course I was taking.\nIt made us better engineers.", ">\n\nHow does handicapping you make you a better engineer? If I put you and an engineer trained with technology in the same room together, who do you think would accomplish the task faster?", ">\n\nThe handicapped engineer, easily. The point of forcing students to actually learn the material is so that they understand how to reason about the underlying processes when they need to troubleshoot something going wrong, and understand the tradeoffs between approaches and how to select the best one for the task. \nOnce you understand things deeply you don't actually need training in doing things quickly because it's immediately intuitive how to apply a technological process to save time. The guy that leaned heavily on technology is basically fucked if he has to use a technique or software that he didn't specifically train on since he doesn't have a good foundation to abstract from. It would be more appropriate to call this person a technician.", ">\n\nThe purpose of calculators is to do the menial part of the work, not to solve whole processes. The engineer that learned with calculators likely knows how to select the right process to solve a problem, but uses the calculator to do the math faster and with fewer errors.", ">\n\nAt the college level, we’re not talking about tools to add and multiply. We’re talking about tools like Wolfram Alpha that do entire symbolic manipulations for you. If I took a calculus class and on all the assignments used Wolfram Alpha to find derivatives, do you think I would have learned anything?\nThat is what ChatGPT is doing for essays", ">\n\nThere are things called pencil and paper.", ">\n\nAs I said, this is the first line defense. However as I already commented to another user. I can simply hand copy ChatGPT output. Essentially not doing my own independent research, writing, coding, and studying.", ">\n\nWhy don't you consider that research? \nThe first source was the best. It's incredibly efficient research IMO.", ">\n\nThe idea of tool removal has always been flawed. From calculators to chat GPT and beyond. If your test is so flimsy that a simple tool invalidates it then the test is poorly built. Test shouldn't be simple busywork tasks, they should require thinking, problem solving, complex thought. If it's just a game of memorization that can be cheated by answers on a paper, you've built a bad test.\nover memorization (which is what our current school systems teach) is not only unhelpful, but also harmful. We live in an era of wikipedia being a reliable source, of vast access to tools both online and phsycial. We should be teaching kids they should do the work but with the help of those tools, not despite them.\nThe main issue with your argument is that based on what you've said, i can assume you think the current school system is a good one but so many studies have shown that at least here in the US, the school systems are some of the worst in the world. It's this memorize, ignore tools, singular focus mentality that plays such a big role.\nIf we were more creative with education, incorporating tool utilization into the learning process, we'd likely have a major improvement to our educational successes. I could go on about how the education system prefers certain kinds of students over others, and how many students are left behind simply because they don't learn like other kids and are therefore punished, but I won't. All I'll say is that more restrictions on how and what kids learn isn't going to help them learn more or better.\nand in 15 years when chat GPT is a part of daily life in every single company on the planet in some way or another (which I'm beyond certain it will be), kids who were taught how to properly utilize it will have just such a huge advantage in the workforce over those who weren't", ">\n\nRather than attempt to find ways to prevent new technology from interfering with existing pedagogy, shouldn't we review and revise pedagogy as new technology develops? \nIf a chat AI program can write these things, what is the point of having humans repeatedly do the same work? We don't expect people to use an abacus when doing math, or limit their research to what's in the library card catalogue, or require printed paper publications as essay resources; we adapted to the calculator, and to the internet and search engines. So too should we adapt to things like ChatGPT, not by trying to pretend it doesn't exist, but by finding ways to incorporate it into a more holistic approach to learning.\nRather than chain kids to an airgapped room on school grounds outside of school hours to do homework that's of dubious educational value in the first place, we should take this as an opportunity to refocus schooling on in-class engagement and direct instruction. ChatGPT and programs like it are showing us yet another thing we as humans can outsource to our technology, so why struggle to do things in a more difficult and inefficient way?", ">\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\nIn addition, AI is only as good as the data it is fed. You must still be able to do the work on your own to analyze when the AI is giving valid outputs (garbage in, garbage out). This is especially true, when AI runs the risks of being owned or operated by those with a specific agenda. Can you imagine the trouble that would result if people relied on AI to determine who to vote for, but someone was able to pay the operators to have the AI promote them?\nRelying on AI to do our work for us is a distillation of an appeal to authority fallacy on a large scale (if the AI says it, it must be true).", ">\n\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\n\nThis is something I worry about A LOT when it comes to AI. Our collective understanding of the subjects that we usually classify as \"the humanities\" is constantly evolving as we learn more, and especially as a more diverse set of people are allowed to study, research and put forth opinions and arguments.\nImagine if students were outsourcing all their history, psychology, sociology and philosophy homework to a chatbot with a 1950s understanding of those subjects.\nImagine doctors outsourcing psych patient diagnoses to a chatbot with the same understanding.\nOn an arguably less \"serious\" but still critically important moral and political topic, imagine if all/most videogame art was outsourced to an AI engine with a 1990s sensibility for female characters. Same for all kinds of representation and diversity.\nHow about politics and political science in general... ha!\nEtc, etc etc.\nIt is NOT the case that we already have discovered all the true answers to the big questions, and we can merely turn to a \"knowledge calculator\" like ChatGPT to spit out the truth.\nEven if AI can pretty accurately reflect the discourse of the day, as it is currently understood and accepted, our collective knowledge and culture will stagnate if we do not actively participate in developing it, and we will all pay the price for that.", ">\n\nThese are all moralistic arguments that ultimately don’t mean anything.", ">\n\nI would say they are more epistemic arguments, which do matter greatly in the context of education (which is what the op was referring to).", ">\n\nAre any of these things mentioned actually realistic concerns? Someone is going to train an AI bot to generate 90s female art characters with big tits?\nNo. Lol and even if someone did, who cares?", ">\n\nConsidering how many people believe obviously fake stories that have no supporting evidence (and in spite of contrary evidence), yes, I believe they are very real concerns.\nIf an AI says we should use Brawndo in farming because its got what plants crave (electrolytes), we should probably be able to justify it with reasoning beyond \"the AI says so.\"", ">\n\nWho is suggesting we do anything “just because an AI said so”? \nDo you read books and think everything in it is true “because the book says so”?", ">\n\nHow do you determine if what the book/ai said is false?\nYou would typically do it through a process of research and discovery.\nPeoples' ability to do research and discovery will be greatly diminished if we rely on AI to do those things for us (which is what the previous posters were suggesting).\nTherefore, reliance on AI will lead to us losing the ability to discern if the results of what the AI is saying is correct.", ">\n\nWhat? Lol that doesn’t make any sense at all. \nIt is not like if we use AI then all previous knowledge is simply forgotten or lost. It’s all still there.", ">\n\nForcing homework at school makes that \"not homework\", and this approach has never worked. You cant reject change, it never works. Every time there has been a game changing event, people adapted. Those who tried to reject change disappeared. Horse carriages disappeared from roads because something else replaced it. Some people supposedly rejected progress, but they are lying to themselves, they still use modern tech or services at some point.\nAnyway, the change is here, and it made essays irrelevant. Time to find another way to test people skills. \nGive it a little time though. ChatGPT costs a ginormous amount of money to run and will not stay free for long either.", ">\n\nIt's not just ChatGPT, the actual innovation is not the interface but lies in algorithms that can recreate natural language of similar quality with smaller data samples. There are also OpenSource datasets like ThePile, etc. so even if OpenAI moves to a paid model (and they will, quickly. You can already sign up to be first in line for the API), there will be other free providers.", ">\n\nHaving coded AIs, I disagree. ChatGPT is a regular trained AI. The novelty is the scale of the operation, and the fact there is a public API.\nNo one ever spent that much money on resources to run and train an AI publicly. I am pretty sure google has done something similar with user data sets to make their search engine and general ecosystem.\nI wish there was a way to have algorithms working with smaller data sets and produce similar results, but it kind of does not work that way.", ">\n\nThere are already tools to identify ChatGPT generated texts. Such tools will improve as another use of literally the same technology.\nJust as teachers submit essays for identifying plagiarism, teachers will submit essays for identifying AI-generated text. \nFurther, a focus could change from grading students on what they know to grading students' ability to ask meaningful, content-based questions about the subject. After all, knowing facts isn't particularly valuable as a skill. Integrating facts and discovering valuable questions is still something that remains a uniquely human skill. And is where people will continue to add value as AI becomes more advanced.", ">\n\nStudents have always been able to 'cheat' on work done outside the classroom, by copying or somehow getting others to do their work for them, even before the internet. Yes with more advanced modern technology it is easier but this has always been a concern. \nAs regular learning environments like supervised classrooms are already 'quarantined' in the way you descibe you are fundementally just suggesting an increase in learning hours as a supplement to homework. This has been suggested by many for various reasons but it would overall cuase more issues than it fixes. It increases work load on teachers and administrators, stretching already thin educational budgets, and forces increased mental strain on children. It would limit their ability to do other recreational and out of ciriculum activities. This would be disruptive and controlling when the quantity of teaching and learning time that children recive is already considered sufficiant for a good education.", ">\n\nHell the only thing stopping me from using ChatGPT regularly for my work now is that it's always at capacity.", ">\n\nApply tests that are hand written, doesnt matter how a person obtains the knowledge, actually learning the subject is most important thing.", ">\n\nThere is no amount of ChatGPT that could influence a good old oral exam where the teacher evaluates the understanding via a little chat.", ">\n\nSo tired of this view. We shouldn’t be fighting technology. Teach kids to use the resources they have to find answers. It’s such a waste of 12 years of school, teaching kids to memorize facts and follow rules. \nInstead, every test should be open book and reward the best answers. Ask the kids to show their work or explain their thought process so we reward understanding of a topic rather than memorization of steps or text.", ">\n\n20 years ago, there were already homework communities and learn groups. Even from the publishers of school books and with free access to tutors. Ok, they didnt do the final homework for me, but gave me a great starting point.\nBeing the kid who transcribes a wiki page was already stupid back then when others could call you out:\nBut I guess the actual problem is lack of digital literacy with teachers, they're always 5-10 years behind.", ">\n\nIf you are testing skills that can be done by free tools on the internet, then you are testing irrelevant skills.\nThe best way to educate kids is to test for skills they need, not skills they objectively don't.\nI was able to witness a couple of universities adapt to tests during quarantine, and follow reports on how the new methods would be used going forward.\nThe results where thus:\nMass offline testing is incredibly cost efficient (one examiner per ~300 students), but the tests results are a poor indicator of real world performance.\nOne to One testing is incredibly expensive, but can, when done right, test actual understanding and performance.\nBoth will be useful, of course. Mass testing is most useful when used in a way that students aren't incentivized to cheat, such as when framed as practice.", ">\n\nOne of the upsides of needing to prevent this kind of tech from cheating assignments is that teachers should focus on having students be able to do their homework at school. (As a former teacher, we were trying to do this already- no more than 15 min of homework per class). \nI dont think we need to do quite what you say. We just need to limit outside electronics and have in-person classrooms or computer labs with programs designed to be AI-proof. \nI have ALWAYS believed that cell phones/internet watches should be stored in school lockers (at most) and never allowed anywhere else on campus during the school day. If anyone needs to contact the students they contact the desk who relays their message/other need. Many schools already do this.", ">\n\n∆\nI agree with this. It would help.", ">\n\nThank you!", ">\n\nThat is utterly pointless.\nThere is no reason to limit the available tools.\nThis just reminds me of the entire \"you won't have a calculator wherever you go\" argument.\nSchool should instead put a focus on responsibly using available tools.", ">\n\nAnd if students choose to use them irresponsibly, what should schools do?\nAnd can you please define what constitutes responsible use? Because despite knowing about plagiarism, people still copy and paste from the internet. Perfect abstinence is easier than perfect moderation after all.", ">\n\nJust return to hand written essays and have more oral exams.", ">\n\n∆l\nActually of all comments having oral exams compliments my post and I agree with you. Enjoy the delta.", ">\n\nIn a Faraday cage.", ">\n\nIf children can just generate work with ChatGPT, it simply shows that children are not being taught anything valuable. (Once ChatGPT responses can be generated in almost unlimited amounts at very low cost, it necessarily means those responses are of low value)\nInstead shouldn't we be teaching children to provide more valuable outcomes that ChatGPT can't replicate?", ">\n\nBeing able to do on your own what ChatGPT does with access to an immense amount of data and processing power is valuable. The actual writing isn't valuable, obviously, but it would be silly to expect it to be. It's just a side effect of practice, you spend time making things of little or no value to build up the skills you'll need to make something that actually matters. That's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\nI think you'd be hard pressed to teach a class of children to outperform ChatGPT in writing without ever asking them to write something that could also be done via AI. What would that even look like?", ">\n\n\nThat's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\n\nIt is a problem. That is why I hated math class until 2nd year of university.", ">\n\nDid you start discovering novel math results in your second year of university, or was that just the point at which you first encountered problems you found interesting, despite the fact that someone else had already solved them before? Thinking back the class you didn't hate, do you think it should be removed if someone can construct an AI to give all the answers you gave?", ">\n\nThis is only a method for evaluating students, it doesn't do anything to educate them.\nChatgpt is potentially a great tool for education but trying to find complex ways around it for homework is pointless. When testing fact retention is required using school/university computers with no web browsing makes sense. For any other test or situation it's a tool that might be used.", ">\n\nI understand OPs concern. That said, I do not think you can create true quarantine for a multitude of reasons. \nThe biggest one is probably time. I worked through high school and university. Because I lived in the middle of nowhere it was about a 30 min drive to high school and then an hour to uni. Having to stay at these quarantine zones to complete assignments would have been hell on my schedule, car, and wallet. \nYou said it yourself, if someone is going to cheat, they will cheat. If I had to do the work in a quarantine zone, what exactly stops me from doing the actual work on my computer at home, printing it all out, and then just writing that into the computer at the quarantine zone? Unless you want to try having students write an entire essay in their hour long class? There has to be a point where they go home and then this falls apart.", ">\n\nThere are already lots of ways to cheat in homework and mostly our steps to deal with that amount to the honour system, and by university level, automated plagiarism detection (which can be quite easily avoided). The point you \"won't argue\" that people will cheat if given the opportunity is probably the actual crux of what's wrong with your suggestion and the part that needs a big [citation needed]. Concluding that the majority of people are fundamentally dishonest is a big assumption to handwave away. \nIf you want an education, cheating is stupid. Ultimately you might get a paper qualification out of it but you'll have actually learned nothing - you won't hold up long against someone who has done it properly when you actually have to apply the skills. Or if you do, then the assignments weren't that crucial to the learning in the first place.", ">\n\nMany of the things I learned in school were largely irrelevant. I couldn't use a calculator to do long division. After I passed those early elementary school years I never did long division again. I wouldn't even argue learning the long division algo is mandatory. It's nice to have learnt it I guess, but I spent way too many hours on it. I can see learning fundamentals of essay writing, etc, are great, but why can't we just evolve to learn more effective things in life? ChatGPT should be used as a tool, not viewed as a detriment.", ">\n\nIt'd suggest that the best way to educate them is to embrace ChatGBT and teach them to use it well. Your method is a bit like teaching kids to do math without calculators or accounting without excel or financial software. There is some value, but it runs out very quickly and you're at a social and competetive disadvantage for taking some archane principled approach to education that is more of a defense of \"how we used to do it\".\nI'm old enough to remember when using a word processor was sometime forbidden for reasons of fairness - that seems entirely disconnected now from doing good work and it's almost hard to envision the thought process of those who thought everything should be hand written for students. \nIsn't the kid who is amazing at utilizing tools like ChatGBT going to do much better in the world than the one who does not? Your idea of \"proper education\" would easily regress back to needing to do all subjects scrawled in dirt with sticks and grunted in non-standardized language.", ">\n\nOR, chatgpt will be a great boon to the entire education system:\nIncreased accessibility: ChatGPT and other AI-powered systems can provide education to individuals who otherwise would not have access to it, due to geographical, financial, or other barriers.\n\nPersonalized learning: ChatGPT can provide personalized education experiences based on each student's strengths, weaknesses, and learning style.\n\n24/7 availability: ChatGPT can operate 24/7, providing students with access to education at any time, anywhere, which can be especially beneficial for those with demanding schedules or for individuals in remote areas.\n\nScalability: ChatGPT can provide education to a large number of students simultaneously, which could help to address the shortage of teachers and resources in some areas.\n\nCost-effectiveness: ChatGPT can be a more cost-effective option for providing education compared to traditional methods, as it does not require physical classrooms or teachers.\n\nImproved student engagement: ChatGPT can provide interactive, engaging learning experiences that can hold students' attention and foster deeper learning.\n\n--Source: ChatGPT", ">\n\nThere a lots of places where texts and exams are “open book”. The questions have to be written differently, and the point is that you’re not testing someone’s ability to memorize, but rather their ability to understand. This is a more difficult test to write, so in theory AI could force education to improve since everyone would a virtual tutor with them at all times.", ">\n\nI'm a teacher and I've been thinking a lot about this the last couple months. Changes within the education system/curriculum/syllabus/retraining of teachers will take far too long to keep up with the ease of access to, and success of, chatgpt and AI in general. \nThe only solution moving forward both short and long term is to embrace it, there is no stopping it now anyway and if we don't all want to be out of a job in 5 years we need to - \n- demonstrate feasible/moral/ethical use of such tools\n- create more opportunities for collaborative learning/hands-on/problem solving tasks and ones that increase communication skills between peers. \nHow this applies to each individual, specific task will vary and must require a lot of creativity and trial and error, but I think relying too heavily on your department of education to handle this (or most 'boots on the ground' problems) will ultimately only degrade a students experience and ability for learning.", ">\n\nI'm with you on what you're trying to accomplish. I just don't know that it's the \"best\" way. \nFor instance, how is homework performed in school superior to trusting the kids to learn the material, which would then be tested by oral exam? And yes, I do believe that asking a student to verbally explain a topic is a really good way to gauge mastery.", ">\n\nThere is not a hope in hell that we'll go back to hand written stuff. That's not how technology works. As the music companies. There are better ways to show you know a subject, for sure, than the current out of-date ones. That's for sure. Have you ever taken an on-line exam?", ">\n\nI argue to let them use chatGPT as it will be their future. This is similar to my generations \"you'll never walk around with a calculator so learn math.\" The future children will grow into a society where work means utilizing AI tech to help them thrive. If chatGPT helps them write an essay, and it's good, it means they're using resources. I agree, however, that we should supplement this with actual reading and writing.", ">\n\nI would argue that most of time that ChatGPT and similar technologies is going to be an issue is in 8-12 grade and college.\nThis technology is not going away, and it's only going to improve. Personally I would treat it like calculators, audio books and spell check.\nTech kids how to use the technology properly. Sure it's somewhat handy to calculate numbers in your head, but having the ability to do math in your head does not give you much of an advantage in today's world and not being able to doesn't hurt you much. But it's still critical to know formulas and how to peace together algebraic statements and word problems. \nKnowing how to spell properly is less important than knowing proper word usage - most times you're writing something it can be spell-checked in real time. Sure it's \"terrible that today's kids...\" don't know how to spell... but it's not going to affect their career. \nEnter ChatGPT - same thing. Should I spend the time to write a white paper on the changing advertising landscape to alert my boss about the a potential seismic shift in advertising revenue, or should I ask ChatGPT to write it? As a user I have to understand its limits and potential copywrite issues, but even more importantly how to verify that what it writes is correct and targeting the right audience. Is data from before 2020 going to be recent and accurate enough for my thesis? How do I supplement the discussion with real-world data? \nThis is our new reality. We should be learning how to use the tools properly, not trying to figure out to lock it down (which frankly makes as much sense as locking down the use of calculators or spell check).", ">\n\nI think there are already apps in place that are able to detect AI generated text (Read this article).\nAlso, I think a better method would be to simply have a database of ChatGPT (could be encrypted) generated text and make it available to already existing software that is use to detect plagiarism (this is just an exemple amongst many)", ">\n\nFrankly I don’t think high schoolers and below should be given homework or tests at all. One learns magnitudes better through exploration as opposed to mindless repetition. Engage with these kids intellectually, make them free thinking Athenians, not bags of knowledge of which they have no idea how to use.\nDoes it not surprise anyone that we train people for over a decade in intellect yet hardly have any intellectuals?", ">\n\nI would argue that society would be better off spending resources on teaching children how to use this tool effectively. Knowing how to get the right answer is what matters in this world.", ">\n\nThen answer this: Well why learn math at all? Seriously.\nWhy learn he concept of subtraction let alone division? I could and society has argued that with the advent of digital calculators. \nYet we learn it. \nLater we use calculators to take the mundane and already known processes to the next level. We abstract away the mundane. \nAs a EE having worked and am working on products you may be using right now to read this, when I develop new silicon and chips I don’t break out Karnaugh maps and lay down circuit using a T square and stencils of gates. But I sure the hell know what I’m doing and expect the tools to do for me. \nTeaching fundamentals of reading, writing, arithmetic, essays, research are just that fundamental.", ">\n\nI’d argue that the vast majority don’t need anything beyond basic math anyways. \nGo ask the average adult if they know the quadratic equation and what it means and you’d probably be disappointed.", ">\n\nChatGPT is here to stay, you'd better advocate for teaching people how to make the most of it and use it wisely instead of pretending it doesn't exist.\nOne of my favourite teachers always told students to use the best tools there are.", ">\n\nI think it depends completely on the topic. In my field of study, it’s fairly easy to come up with term paper assignments that the bot would be useless for. \nLooking back at the paper I wrote last year, I don’t see how any current bot could have helped, as it isn’t able to read or summarize specific sources (yet?).\nAn example of the type of assignments we get is “Discuss the role of state capacity in x and x conflict in light of (specific research paper)‘s dimensions of state capacity - do your findings confirm the findings of (authors), why or why not?\nThis way of combining literature made it difficult even for me to be on top of it, as there were no sources that had attempted this exact combination - it has to be original. \nAlso, I find it’s the best way to learn, because you have to rely on your own judgement and there are no shortcuts, even asking the professor was unhelpful as he wasn’t too familiar with the details.", ">\n\nThis is not the best way.", ">\n\n\nThese homework rooms would have Internet connected computers for use but access to ChatGPT would be filtered and blocked.\n\nThis wouldn't be feasible, there's far too many roundabout ways to still access ChatGPT. Security measures like domain filtering are just unproductive games of whack-a-mole. \nEdit: removed all the other stuff I wrote, as those points have already been mentioned in previous top-level comments.", ">\n\nHomework shouldn’t be the go-to method of “education” to begin with. Imo Universities should focus on the integral part of education: the lectures. Tools like chatgpt can help student who are actually interested in a subject to learn more easily about it, but whether students actually learn anything or not from a class won’t change regardless of if work is authentic or copied from an AI\nSource: I’m a college student and have had experience in both supervised environments where we had to do work without the use of computers/phones and solely-online environments where many students cheated", ">\n\nWhile this could work, it is not necessarily the best way in terms of accessibility and of learning in general. \nFirst, students with ADHD and certain other conditions may not necessarily be the able to be productive at all times, or at the specific time they have to work on those computers, especially if those computers are not in an environment ideal to that specific person. It would also not be very feasible to give students enough time on these computers to complete the bigger assignments and essays. \nSecond, while ChatGPT is quite advanced, it simply works by looking at language patterns and often gets factual details incorrect. For example, with bigger coding problems, it tries to import modules that do not exist or call on functions that it has not defined. In literature, it cannot analyze texts on much more than a surface level. I will admit it can use secondary sources for textual analysis, however, it is unable to come up with a clear thesis on its own. \nAdditionally, take-home tests can be just as easily cheated on using a normal Google search, and usually test thinking skills rather than understanding and knowledge. \nFinally, essay-writing and other types of assignments are generally not ideal for learning as they are only one type of skill, and university professors are recognizing this. Not only do they not work for all learning styles, but they are only used so commonly because of tradition. University professors are structuring assignments around ways that are innovative enough that ChatGPT is unable to work on them. Along with requiring specific readings which the AI might not have access to, and citing of all sources (which has always been a requirement that the AI might trip up on), they are also going away from the traditional essay format into others. For example, I am studying literature, a relatively essay-heavy field, and in my past few courses I have been asked to analyze comics (which the AI cannot read), edit other people’s essays and articles (from past courses), create a mock syllabus or lesson plan with justifications for each reading, and create annotated bibliographies as a stepping stone to an essay. All of these not only require different skills and encourage different types of learning and research but are quite difficult for an AI to do. \nAll in all, while your suggestion is great, the very nature of the AI and the fact that it exists at all is perhaps a sign that the best course of action is to rework the way we think about evaluation. After all, if an evaluation is such that an AI can complete it without the ability to actually think (it works by using observed language patterns), then perhaps the evaluation is not ideal.", ">\n\nI bet teachers and people thought the same thing about calculators when they came out or 1990s internet. AI bots like chat GPT are just a tool.", ">\n\nAll this effectively does is train kids to accomplish goals of a type that do not exist in the real world in a situation they will never realistically encounter. A better goal is adjusting testing criteria to account for this.\nThere might be very specific sets of knowledge for which rote memorization is appropriate, and for those, the air gapped testing may be appropriate. But I believe those are the exception rather than the rule. By and large, teaching kids to effectively utilize the tools that will be available to them is what we should be doing.", ">\n\nImagine learning where the only books are hand written.\nThe printing press took out a huge amount of repetitive labor in the learning process.\nAI/ChatGPT stands a good chance of removing a huge amount knowledge labor which stands between an idea and the end product. Learning to use the AI to best effect the Idea->End Product Chain is more important than worrying about memorizing formulae we will likely never need to remember. \nThe effort to restrict ChatGPT is just education system worrying about their Cheese Being Moved.", ">\n\nThis just doesn't make any sense to me. You're arguing that we shouldn't allow students to use tools they would have at their disposal in a real working environment, and for what? Why wouldn't you want students to use every tool at their disposal? How exactly is handicapping them helping them to understand the coursework?\nA much better approach would be to fundamentally alter how we teach to better prepare them for the workforce. Encouraging collaboration and creative problem solving skills is much more practical and effective.", ">\n\nChatGPT may pass the Bar, but I highly doubt it will replace lawyers or other professionals. \nThe whole point of credentialing is to drive accountability. Anyone can study the law and cite precedent without a law degree. Actually representing a client in a court of law requires oversight and knowledge. ChatGPT isn't perfect - it will make mistakes from time to time. So who is responsible when it makes a mistake? When is a client (who is not familiar with the law) supposed to know that a mistake has been made on their behalf? For this reason, until ChatGPT is literally perfect you're always going to need a credentialed professional to review the output.\nFor the record, I think ChatGPT is wonderful. But it's a tool that people will use, not a full-fledged replacement for professionals. My employer (a Fortune 500 company) has already rejected its use for internal projects. IT has the website blocked.", ">\n\nThe kids that are educated without its use will fall behind in business when faced with kids that are using it to its fullest extent.\nYou've successfully made an argument for people to succeed in a test that is worthless in the real world. Its parameters don't match.", ">\n\nThe best way to educate children is to teach them skills and strategies that will actually serve them in the workplace of the future. \nChatGPT already has reached the point of replacing humans (See Buzzfeed news). If ChatGPT can take the test or do the homework then what value is that education going to be to these students? Especially older students will quickly see rote memorization as a waste of time and so yes they probably will cheat if they have the opportunity. Trying to force these things to be “learned” and prove that knowledge by brute force banning things is going to be a costly uphill battle.", ">\n\nWhat if we modify how essays are written by students, by asking them to include citations (which is something ChatGPT can’t do)?\nWe can’t stop new tools from making old methods obsolete. But we can focus on enhancing critical thinking of students in a stepwise manner. When a new tool is created, think about how you can adapt rather than resist it.", ">\n\nWhy not just train an ai to spot ai written papers?", ">\n\nWhat about gradually putting more emphasis on oral assignments?", ">\n\nEverything you said makes perfect sense...IF the goal was to teach children simply how to write the perfect standard essay. But that is a very limited way of viewing education and what its real goal is. The real goal of education is to teach children how to think. To come up with the right questions, not just the right answers. In a world where a \"good enough\" essay on literally anything can be conjured as if by magic by a machine, what's the actual value of that exercise now? For a very long time teachers have used the essay as a way to evaluate how a person thinks. Now that a machine can write it for you, we need new ways to evaluate how students think. That's the real task we are facing. Fuck the essay, just like we ditched the slide rule for calculators and later computers, etc. Tools change but the real game remains the same: Think for yourself!", ">\n\nI'd say the best way would be to accept the reality of changing technology and reevaluating the approach we have towards education as a whole.\nGranted, I'd say that's only one half of the picture: reassessing how we conceive if jobs and labour in the face of increasing automation goes along with that, and I think neither really works without the other.\nBottom line is that human labour is more and more obsolete as time goes on, so human jobs will be less and less in demand (I'd argue moving away from a capitalistic system is the right call, but even if you don't, automation is still an incentive).\nSince a large part of the incentive of our current education system is \"prepare you for a job\" I think the whole thing is going to fall short in light of these kinds of systems developing.\nTheres lots of people now who pursue knowledge as a project of passion, rather than a means to an end, and I think moving to a system that supports and encourages that kind of ambition is the way to go.", ">\n\nI disagree. We should learn to use the tools we have efficiently. Otherwise you are not learning for your career but for some professors ego", ">\n\nThat’s not “education in the era of ChatGPT.” That’s education in the era before ChatGPT while we figure out what the world with ChatGPT will look like so we have some idea of what to do with it.\nThat’s also not “educating,” that’s just “assessment.” Assessment is simply a measuring system for education. As long as you think of the acquisition of knowledge and skill as requiring knowledge regurgitation and skill performance in isolation and divorced from context/individualized, then you’re going to end up at necessitating a kind of geofenced, Luddite assessment model. The training itself predicates the assessment method. How we assess is defined by how we teach, and vice versa.\nThe best assessment method to gauge understanding is, and always has been, conversation.\nAll we need to do is pair assessment with regular conversation between qualified teacher and student to determine if personal comprehension is present. Not an interview, not an interrogation — conversation. Problem solving performance contexts are also great revealer of internalized knowledge and skill.\nChatGPT is a relative nonissue if your approach to assessment is at all human.\nIt’s only a problem when you’re trying to mechanize and dehumanized education. “Rigorous” does not mean “mechanical.” We are going to have to trust the professional, knowledge- and skill-assessing judgements of humans who already know and can do.\nEducation reverts to having more emphasis on apprenticeship and mentorship models, where the relationship itself is part of the learning process. \n(The “accountability!” cranks are gonna love that…)", ">\n\nI have a strong suspicion that discussions like this, while very interesting, will be obsolete long before any changes can actually be implemented in schools. In fact, I'm pretty sure schools will be gone entirely in the near future.\nAs of right now, you can be taught almost any subject by an exceptionally well-spoken, fast and infinitely patient teacher called GPT to a university level, if not higher. Try it right now - go ask GPT to explain the political situation that allowed Alexander the Great to conquer Persia, or ask it to explain the raytracing algorithm. If there's a part you don't understand, ask it to clarify. You'll be amazed how accessible it makes advanced topics.\nNow, how long before we have VR software with a realistic-looking AI teacher, with an AI-generated voice, who can do the same thing, but respond to students' voices and use body language and visual demonstrations? Five years?\nHow long after that before this tech is cheap, and of such high quality that sending your kids to school will be a worse education?\nNow in, say, 20 years, we could have an AI system that takes a DNA sample, analyses a students genotype to understand what subjects they will be naturally good at, what education approaches will be most successful, and continuously improves its model of the student's behavior by observing them. It crafts a decades-long education journey tailored to the individual, and accompanies them the entire way.\nTeachers, as far as they've existed so far, don't have a chance.", ">\n\nAre you trying to test someone or teach them?\nIf the latter, why do you care about cheating? This reminds me of the ol' teachers who used to restrict calculators because \"you won't always have a calculator with you.\"", ">\n\nYou forget that for 99% of homework students could just copy each other's work. Having the answers out in the world accessible is not a new problem. You just make homework a small part of the grades and you make sure students understand it's important to actually do it or they won't do well on the tests.", ">\n\nThere are so many people that can’t do the basic math examples you mentioned somewhere and they went to school at a time when there were no calculators.\nOn the other hand I was allowed to use calculators in school pretty much the moment I left elementary school and I am really quite good at math even without assistance.\nTool usage is one of humanities key features and trying to work against it instead of finding ways to incorporate new technology into school and life seems backwards.", ">\n\nIronically the teacher will have to use an AI to decipher the \"hand written\" assignments.", ">\n\nYou can't force people to learn.", ">\n\nWhat about teaching how to think rather than how to memorize? Just a thought 💭", ">\n\nThey need to get rid of homework, and have students do their work while they're at school. It's awful, they just pile it on, even if a class only has a little homework that day, there's like 6 or 7 classes so it's a nightmare for students. Seems like the only way to prevent cheating is have them do work in class, so I hope for the students sake, they do that.", ">\n\nI’ll throw my idea into the ring, though we’re still a few years off from this technology:\nWe should have students interact with AI tutors that can prompt them questions and point out details. Then they can collaborate on assignments, and the AI tutor can give feedback and suggest snippets. The AI can evaluate their work and their engagement with the material.", ">\n\nOne of Transformers main applications is in search. Ie you get a set of embeddings you can compare the pairwise distances between embedding and get a list of scores that tell you which embeddings are most similar to the input. \nEssentially tools like google are made to reduce the search space for a given query collect likely links and then rerank the most likely results. \nChatgpt basically does this in a more direct way of searching through a space of potential responses. Basically trained on a task to predict next token given the previous tokens or fill in a mask\nTransformers permeate everything students use from the recommendation algorithms on TikTok Facebook, YouTube to search systems in google. \nIn my opinion students should absolutely not be taught to fear these tools tho I do agree they be tested in constrained environments to challenge them. Current systems should not be used to learn unless you have a clear understanding and are willing to check every word and check your reasoning. Future systems will be much better though so this problem isn’t going anywhere. \nIf anything there should be a push to make these ideas more interpretable to a younger audience and give them the tools to navigate an increasingly complex market of ideas. They should be aware of the limitations and how when they use a piece of software their actions and the actions of those around them are influencing what they see next. \nIt should be used and taught with rigor. \nIt’s programming 2.0", ">\n\nDude no; \nChatGPT is the computer. \nDo you want to be the education system that banned the computer and then wondered why all the other education systems output modern tech workers, while your education system kept outputting chimney sweeps and car factory workers?", ">\n\nHW only exists to make students practice, and generally is worth less than 20% of the grade in a class. If a student chooses to use chat GPT to bypass it then that’s the student’s loss.\nUltimately exams are what schools use to evaluate a students knowledge and I don’t think that’s going to change anytime soon", ">\n\nThere are already programs that check if something was written by an AI or not. Also no student I know actually uses chatGPT for major assignments because chatGPT doesn’t know every text to ever be published so it doesn’t understand the context, and most of the time will just bullshit an answer that’s incorrect.\nEveryone I know that uses chatGPT for school do so for either for assignments so small and simple that it doesn’t make sense to quarantine, or they use it as a more advanced google that can answer questions more accurately than a search engine could, essentially just saving time.\n(most) students are using chatGPT largely as a productivity and time management tool rather than to cheat.", ">\n\nThis is like saying “in the age of calculators, the only way to ensure kids learn maths is to ban calculators in school”. If looked at correctly, chatgpt is an effect multiplier, learning just has to be rejigged to have kids learn to do things that they can’t simply ask chatgpt to do for them.", ">\n\nLess course work and more exams is the future in a world with chatGPT.", ">\n\nChatGPT will be a big no issue soon. I work in a research field and this was something we worried about last year. As of now there are multiple tools and even more being developed that catch the use of ChatGPT. There has been research published that list ChatGPT as a co-author, but for most research, and use by students, it will simply be forbidden and will easily be caught as well. The program does well but it has a particular style that can be caught. Again it will be a non-issue soon.", ">\n\nThis is like forbidding people to use a calculator because it can give you the result instant. A better way is to teach them how to use the calculator, because its here now and won't go away. Same with GPT. Children can learn way better/faster with ChatGPD if used correctly. Imaging having a private teacher for free which helps you learning every time of the day.", ">\n\nLet me ask you this. If ChatGPT could complete a students whole assignment, what would that student have learned from doing that assignment on their own that won’t simply be replaced with ChatGPT by a employer in the future?\nEven if ChatGPT doesn’t replace workers for a decade, why teach students skills that will inevitably be replaced and leave said students jobless in a decade?\nChatGPT won’t only be used in the workforce either. Linus Tech Tips has a video showing how ChatGPT can help people learn new skills and do troubleshooting on their own. If I remember correctly, he manages to completely build a pc by only strictly following what ChatGPT tells him to. It even managed to suggest the best parts for that computers specific use case. It was nowhere near perfect, but in the future it will get there.\nSince ChatGPT is such a useful tool in the workforce and at home, I think it’s crucial we teach students how to use it instead of banning them from it. Maybe students should be given a problem and tasked to use ChatGPT to find the solution or have students attempt to learn a new topic with ChatGPT. I’m not a teacher, I just thought of those examples of the top of my head. I’m sure qualified teachers could think of better assignments than me.\nI could see ChatGPT helping a mechanic diagnose an issue so the mechanic could spend more time fixing the problem rather than diagnosing and I can think of a few examples in other jobs as well where ChatGPT will help a worker be more efficient and save more time.\nI think, if anything, we’re setting students up for failure by not teaching them about these tools that will take over the workforce and help in everyday life.", ">\n\nYou’ll still have to pass a test. Relax.", ">\n\nIt “fairs” extremely well? Maybe some additional time spent observing ChatGPT could actually benefit some", ">\n\nThere’s just no way you can use ChatGPT to do all of your work for you and be successful at any moderately high level of academic pursuit. Not without learning the material yourself, and if you’ve done that, I don’t think it matters so much whether you used chatGPT and for what along the way.\nFrankly if you start our using chatGPT early in school, you won’t even be able to ask the right questions in the right way and include the necessary refinements to do more complex and demanding assignments down the road. \nAlso, tests are still a thing aren’t they? ChatGPT doesn’t help you perform in person in a monitored environment - not in a way that would allow you to skip learning the material. I don’t really get this aspect of your cmv. As long as tests don’t allow access to ChatGPT, anyone who didn’t learn the material is going to be exposed..", ">\n\nThere are already programs that detect ChatGPT writing.", ">\n\nThe children who want to cheat will always find a way to do so. It doesn’t matter how much you do to restrict it, it’ll just make them find new means of doing so. \nSource: I did GCSE’s in the UK, AP in the US. Trust, kids will cheat even in sterile environments. Especially if it’s a huge room and there are few moderators. A lot of us are scared of repercussions but those who aren’t won’t let anything stand in there way—region and proctoring be damned.", ">\n\nI require them to complete an outline first. Outline must be submitted to me before I take the essay. Google doc lets you see that they write it and when each sentence was written. It’s helped.", ">\n\nCHATGPT is a tool, and in some applications (not all), it can help students do their homework. Consider the calculator. Do students not need to learn formulas and critical thinking just because they can punch numbers into calculators?\nNo, math is still a skill that is valuable if for no other reason then because it trains your brain to solve problems.\nOne of the things that surprises me is that ChatGPT can use words and explain things to students even when a teacher is not available or when there isn’t one. we should consider this an educational opportunity rather than a disadvantage.\nThere are so many amazing things we humans can do when we simply have tools to help us. ChatGPT is no different.", ">\n\nYou can’t force people to live in the past. Chat GPT is here to stay. Education now needs to focus on teaching people how to use AI, and how to develop a skill that can’t be replaced by AI.", ">\n\nHow about getting students engaged in what they’re learning and excited to learn. Find what they’re good at and double down on it. Don’t make school a fucking quarantine bubble. Socialize, allow them to teach and learn from each other. Replace the potential for cheating with collaboration assignments in person. “Children will cheat if given the opportunity” is such horse shit. If somebody doesn’t know or wasn’t taught something well then yea they’re gonna look to get it right so they can obtain approval. How about teaching them so they won’t cheat??", ">\n\nThats not it. I don’t have an answer for you, but thats not it.", ">\n\nHow about just have the kids do a presentation on \"their\" report with Q&A at the end. They'll have no choice but to know the info.... which is the point.", ">\n\nWell, making an AI that detects if something was made by an AI shouldnt be hard", ">\n\nI wonder if anyone has tried training a machine to look at assignments and give a confidence interval of the assignment being either human or machine in origin.", ">\n\nYeah we call that stuff examns...", ">\n\nThe problem with your suggested approach is that it just reinforces the current failures of the education system. It doesn't actually teach us the skills that you will be able to use in the field. \n\nYou can look up formulas for physics and you can double check online for any coding questions. Chat gpt is a tool and I think forbidding students from using it will just be a disservice to them and everyone in the future. It's not going to go away any time soon so how about instead of teaching children to cheat more effectively, we teach them how to use chat gpt to its full potential? It can speed up so many tasks to such a degree that students will be able to recieve more advanced education in the time that was saved by using chat gpt" ]
> I could use this in my program all I wanted and pass courses with perfect scores, and at the end of my degree I’d have a licensure exam that I’d fail cause I didn’t learn anything.	[ "/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^\| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.", ">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?", ">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.", ">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?", ">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.", ">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?", ">\n\nYou mean a grade?", ">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication", ">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.", ">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)", ">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.", ">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.", ">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.", ">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.", ">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?", ">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.", ">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.", ">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.", ">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.", ">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.", ">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.", ">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.", ">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.", ">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.", ">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.", ">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.", ">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.", ">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.", ">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use", ">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.", ">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.", ">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.", ">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.", ">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.", ">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.", ">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.", ">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).", ">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.", ">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.", ">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.", ">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.", ">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.", ">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.", ">\n\n\nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \n\nWhy? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it. \n\nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \n\nWhy? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? \nLet's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project. \n\nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.\n\nTotally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator.", ">\n\nFor the most part, knowledge workers perform a given amount of work in a given amount of hours, and the number of them hired by a company is TotalHoursNeeded/NumHoursPerEmployee. E.g. if you have 100 manyears of work to get done in a typical year, you employ 100 people.\nChat GPT isn't going to \"replace\" people wholesale, because as you say someone still needs to supervise it. But it looks to be on track to increase the productivity of programmers (can write a first draft of code and finds many of the bugs instantly). \nSame for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones. \nSo now the TotalNeeded is decreased by some percentage, let's say 10% to start. Now you only need 90 human programmers to do that same work. With 25% efficiency gain, you need 75. With 50%, 50. Etc. \nOr take translation jobs. Today, an editor spends roughly 3 minutes per word editing machine translated text, and 1 minute per word editing human-translated text. As long as editors are more expensive per hour than first translation people, it still makes sense much of the time to hire translators, because the software isn't free. \nBut the graph of machine translation \"efficiency\" is trending towards taking the same amount of time to edit as a human translator. As soon as that's hit, there's literally no reason to hire human translators, only editors. \nAnd if the editing time goes down to 30 seconds/word because of further AI assistance to the editor, you only need half as many of those.", ">\n\nThere is currently two better solutions being worked on - one of which is already being used to some degree. \nThe first is ChatGPT developers themselves making moves to make AI written works to be identified by \"watermark\" or similar. I don't thi k this one has taken effect at all yet. \nAnother is by a separate dev team that allows teachers to use software to determine the amount of an essay, for example, that is written by AI what the likelihood of any one sentence or paragraph to have been written by AI. This allows the teachers to use discretion when determining if the student used the AI in a way that they find acceptable or not. This way instead kf running from the scary AI educators can actually utilize tyhe AI with students to help them develop their writing and other communications.", ">\n\nWhat about kids with transportation issues? When I was in school I knew kids that drove almost an hour each way to get there. I certainly couldn’t have asked my parents to drop everything to take me all the way to school so I could do my homework if I forgot. Bus schedules? Do you think schools want to waste more money by burning more gas for extra routes? I understand where you’re coming from, but for a fair amount of children—especially in poorer, more rural areas—that getting to school and back is such a delicate balancing act that such a thing would just punish them.", ">\n\nI've seen a few key things from academics testing out ChatGPT (I have not signed up myself):\n\nIt tends to produce confident, convincing nonsense. It doesn't actually understand what it's writing about, and I hear it shows.\nIt makes up citations. Real authors in the field, real journals... but made-up titles. Things like that, since, again, it doesn't actually understand citations.\n\nThis suggests that, for assignments requiring the demonstration of genuine, in-depth understanding, and not merely the ability to summarize facts, ChatGPT will fail.\nA similar example that you bring up in the comments is programming cheat sheets into calculators - but for well-designed engineering exams (including the licensure exams, at least in the US), cheat sheets are fine and often either allowed or provided. A well-designed exam tests the ability to apply principles, not knowledge of equations, so a cheat sheet is harmless, or even allows the exam to work better (since people aren't distracted with memorizing equations).", ">\n\nThere are three criticisms that I have of this approach. \n\n\nShould we not teach to the environment that we live in? Yes, education often imposes arbitrary constraints like time tests but for research and reports why not let people use and work around all resources? If you can work around chat gpt to work efficiently, then do it. You learn what it can and can’t do and how to use it effectively as a tool. \n\n\nCan chatGPT on it’s own actually write a good essay? From what I have seen it can pull together a few sources. It can generally write fluff based on other things that it has seen. But it struggles to write analysis. It can’t interrogate a source or make value judgements. It could be useful for doing some filler or providing ideas but if to do an actual report, I think it would be insufficient. \n\n\nAn assignment that can be done using chatgpt is probably boring. Here I am writing an essay for no reason other than I find it interesting to discuss this topic. Perhaps, we arent giving students interesting enough assignments or we are overloading them to the point that they don’t have the time to engage? If chatGPT turns out to be an issue maybe it’s more of an indictment of the structures and norms of education.", ">\n\n\n\nhomework in the form of essays, take home tests, coding assignments, would be completed on school grounds. \n\n\nCongratulations, you've invented the \"cram school\".\nI'd recommend reading through your post again and actually thinking about the things you've said. Because essentially, you're merely advocating for the wholesale elimination of homework and for education outside of that to remain totally unchanged. It's almost literally, \"Make the school day 30% longer\".\nMy solution to the \"problem\" of students potentially using ChatGPT to cheat on homework: I don't think you need a hilariously convoluted system of homework \"boiler rooms\" redolent of national security apparatus, that requires schools to adopt ruinously expensive and disruptive technological and administrative changes.\nIt would be sufficient if we institute a system whereby teachers are encouraged to, let's say... \"test\" their students, whether by regular written exams or by talking to them in what I'll call \"classes\", to ensure they understand the material they've been assigned to learn.\nThis method ensures that students cannot use AI homework bots to coast through classes (since they'll literally be found out the very next class), and has the added benefit of not adding three hours to every teacher's day.", ">\n\nWhat about pen and ink?", ">\n\narguably I can just copy a ChatGPT output by hand. So I think that is a first level measure, but not a complete solution.", ">\n\nIt's a better solution than prison just because the curriculum can't keep up with technology.\nWhen calculators arrived on everyone's phone and everyone's pocket did you advocate for the same solution? Unlikely, so why only now with this system?", ">\n\nWell I did and I was. When I was studying engineering in the 80s we routinely could not arrive at exams with a calculator. Even then calculators were programmable enough to allow students to write cheat sheets in calculator memory.\nIt forced us to memorize equations, principals of engineering, and independent thinking. I’m a better engineer because I did.", ">\n\nSo you're what, almost 60? And you think what's best for children is to be like you? Don't you think you may be a bit out of touch?\nAlso, your view was about K12 students, not engineering students.", ">\n\nNo. As I replied, leaning on tools as a crutch all your life will limit your ability and function as a human. For example, you could argue that basic math isn’t necessary. As matter of fact that was an argument years ago with the advent of calculators.\nHowever, humans should be able to exist and functions without a digital crutch. You should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator. You should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google. There are basic elements of duration necessary since we are all still wet grey matter.", ">\n\n\nYou should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator\n\nBut why?\n\nYou should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google\n\nAgain, why?\nWhere do you get your \"should\" from?\nI have basically all human knowledge in my hand, every equation or conversion I'll ever need day to day, even every language I'll likely ever encounter. Why shouldn't I leave my brain free to think about what it wants and to use my incredible resource as and when it's needed?\nDo you envision some Saw-like situation where you're locked to a wall and need to solve maths equations at pain of death?", ">\n\nThe less you use your brain the less likely your body is to maintain it. Our body functions through a use or lose it principle. Just look people who lose movement function/muscle just by being bedridden for a long time. Our brain is not different.\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.", ">\n\nIs wasting resources on process you can deletage outside not using your brain? You free up that space to put to what you decide is important.\n\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.\n\nThe weakest man with a gun can take out the strongest bodybuilder.", ">\n\nAnd if you decide Tik tok and Netflix are important? How do you think that will affect the cognitive ability of kids?\nI didn't mention strength nor physical strength. And even then the strongest man with a gun will probably take out the weakest man with a gun.(An actual fair comparison)", ">\n\nCouldn't chatgpt (or somesuch AI) be asked \"Hey - did you write this?\" and nip this sort of thing in the bud?", ">\n\nNo, Chat GPT doesn't remember everything it's said, the potential things it could say are huge and even if someone wrote something that Chat GPT might say, it could be a coincidence.", ">\n\nWell, strike that idea then.\nStill though - there must be some way to use AI to deal with this. \"set a thief to catch a thief\" and all that.", ">\n\nChat GPT (and most generative AIs) use GANs to generate content. \nIn laymen's terms (and extremely simplified as it's above my level of understanding) a GAN is 2 AI systems competing against each other, a creator AI that creates content and a checker AI that decides if the content was genuine or made by the other AI. \nSo any automated way to tell if it's AI generated can be built into the checker AI in future versions and the creator AI will learn to avoid whichever features the checker AI is spotting.", ">\n\nChatGPT is just another mechanism for reducing the need for labor, and it's not going away. \nChildren will need to be educated in both how to make effective use of it (for as long as it's not sufficient to completely eliminate mental labor), and also in the ethics of not using it. Always forcing them to write in airgapped places isn't going to do that, it just makes them resent it. \nAlso: essay writing on a scale needed to really learn long-form writing is not very amenable to doing in an airgapped classroom, because honestly we're not using dead-tree sources of information anymore already, so doing their research pretty much has to include doing it on line. \nBut really: laborious manual long-form essay writing is going to go the way of penmanship and looking things up in a library as an unneeded skill very quickly. We need children to adjust to that reality of the modern world rather than pretending it will go away. \nPeople are still needed (for now) to do the important part of writing essays without doing the laborious bit that ChatGPT automates anyway: deciding what to write, and editing it into a convincing and well-written form. \nForcing kids to spend a lot of time learning how to write the basic bulk part of essays is a lot like teaching them how to make buggy-whips in shop class: a pointless exercise. \nIt would be better to give them all prewritten ChatGPT essays and have them learn the limitations and capabilities.", ">\n\nIs ChatGPT really that much more effective than just grabbing things off Wikipedia? I was asking it things about elections and it was just Wikipedia from two years ago", ">\n\nThe answer is NEVER to limit technology. It’s to teach the new generation how to use that technology to achieve the same goal.\nIt’s pointless to ban computers and teach the memorization of dates in history class. It’s much more productive to teach online research skills so that if an individual needs to know the date of a particular moment in history, they can reliably Google it.\nChatGPT is the same. It renders writing essays as pointless, and it necessitates the teachers to adapt to new teaching styles, such as teaching the skills on how best to manipulate ChatGPT to return the information you need.", ">\n\nI was banned from using programming calculators when I studied engineering in the 80s during exams. It forced the students to all be on the same level playing field and forced us to actually know the equations, their applications, and the processes of whatever engineering course I was taking.\nIt made us better engineers.", ">\n\nHow does handicapping you make you a better engineer? If I put you and an engineer trained with technology in the same room together, who do you think would accomplish the task faster?", ">\n\nThe handicapped engineer, easily. The point of forcing students to actually learn the material is so that they understand how to reason about the underlying processes when they need to troubleshoot something going wrong, and understand the tradeoffs between approaches and how to select the best one for the task. \nOnce you understand things deeply you don't actually need training in doing things quickly because it's immediately intuitive how to apply a technological process to save time. The guy that leaned heavily on technology is basically fucked if he has to use a technique or software that he didn't specifically train on since he doesn't have a good foundation to abstract from. It would be more appropriate to call this person a technician.", ">\n\nThe purpose of calculators is to do the menial part of the work, not to solve whole processes. The engineer that learned with calculators likely knows how to select the right process to solve a problem, but uses the calculator to do the math faster and with fewer errors.", ">\n\nAt the college level, we’re not talking about tools to add and multiply. We’re talking about tools like Wolfram Alpha that do entire symbolic manipulations for you. If I took a calculus class and on all the assignments used Wolfram Alpha to find derivatives, do you think I would have learned anything?\nThat is what ChatGPT is doing for essays", ">\n\nThere are things called pencil and paper.", ">\n\nAs I said, this is the first line defense. However as I already commented to another user. I can simply hand copy ChatGPT output. Essentially not doing my own independent research, writing, coding, and studying.", ">\n\nWhy don't you consider that research? \nThe first source was the best. It's incredibly efficient research IMO.", ">\n\nThe idea of tool removal has always been flawed. From calculators to chat GPT and beyond. If your test is so flimsy that a simple tool invalidates it then the test is poorly built. Test shouldn't be simple busywork tasks, they should require thinking, problem solving, complex thought. If it's just a game of memorization that can be cheated by answers on a paper, you've built a bad test.\nover memorization (which is what our current school systems teach) is not only unhelpful, but also harmful. We live in an era of wikipedia being a reliable source, of vast access to tools both online and phsycial. We should be teaching kids they should do the work but with the help of those tools, not despite them.\nThe main issue with your argument is that based on what you've said, i can assume you think the current school system is a good one but so many studies have shown that at least here in the US, the school systems are some of the worst in the world. It's this memorize, ignore tools, singular focus mentality that plays such a big role.\nIf we were more creative with education, incorporating tool utilization into the learning process, we'd likely have a major improvement to our educational successes. I could go on about how the education system prefers certain kinds of students over others, and how many students are left behind simply because they don't learn like other kids and are therefore punished, but I won't. All I'll say is that more restrictions on how and what kids learn isn't going to help them learn more or better.\nand in 15 years when chat GPT is a part of daily life in every single company on the planet in some way or another (which I'm beyond certain it will be), kids who were taught how to properly utilize it will have just such a huge advantage in the workforce over those who weren't", ">\n\nRather than attempt to find ways to prevent new technology from interfering with existing pedagogy, shouldn't we review and revise pedagogy as new technology develops? \nIf a chat AI program can write these things, what is the point of having humans repeatedly do the same work? We don't expect people to use an abacus when doing math, or limit their research to what's in the library card catalogue, or require printed paper publications as essay resources; we adapted to the calculator, and to the internet and search engines. So too should we adapt to things like ChatGPT, not by trying to pretend it doesn't exist, but by finding ways to incorporate it into a more holistic approach to learning.\nRather than chain kids to an airgapped room on school grounds outside of school hours to do homework that's of dubious educational value in the first place, we should take this as an opportunity to refocus schooling on in-class engagement and direct instruction. ChatGPT and programs like it are showing us yet another thing we as humans can outsource to our technology, so why struggle to do things in a more difficult and inefficient way?", ">\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\nIn addition, AI is only as good as the data it is fed. You must still be able to do the work on your own to analyze when the AI is giving valid outputs (garbage in, garbage out). This is especially true, when AI runs the risks of being owned or operated by those with a specific agenda. Can you imagine the trouble that would result if people relied on AI to determine who to vote for, but someone was able to pay the operators to have the AI promote them?\nRelying on AI to do our work for us is a distillation of an appeal to authority fallacy on a large scale (if the AI says it, it must be true).", ">\n\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\n\nThis is something I worry about A LOT when it comes to AI. Our collective understanding of the subjects that we usually classify as \"the humanities\" is constantly evolving as we learn more, and especially as a more diverse set of people are allowed to study, research and put forth opinions and arguments.\nImagine if students were outsourcing all their history, psychology, sociology and philosophy homework to a chatbot with a 1950s understanding of those subjects.\nImagine doctors outsourcing psych patient diagnoses to a chatbot with the same understanding.\nOn an arguably less \"serious\" but still critically important moral and political topic, imagine if all/most videogame art was outsourced to an AI engine with a 1990s sensibility for female characters. Same for all kinds of representation and diversity.\nHow about politics and political science in general... ha!\nEtc, etc etc.\nIt is NOT the case that we already have discovered all the true answers to the big questions, and we can merely turn to a \"knowledge calculator\" like ChatGPT to spit out the truth.\nEven if AI can pretty accurately reflect the discourse of the day, as it is currently understood and accepted, our collective knowledge and culture will stagnate if we do not actively participate in developing it, and we will all pay the price for that.", ">\n\nThese are all moralistic arguments that ultimately don’t mean anything.", ">\n\nI would say they are more epistemic arguments, which do matter greatly in the context of education (which is what the op was referring to).", ">\n\nAre any of these things mentioned actually realistic concerns? Someone is going to train an AI bot to generate 90s female art characters with big tits?\nNo. Lol and even if someone did, who cares?", ">\n\nConsidering how many people believe obviously fake stories that have no supporting evidence (and in spite of contrary evidence), yes, I believe they are very real concerns.\nIf an AI says we should use Brawndo in farming because its got what plants crave (electrolytes), we should probably be able to justify it with reasoning beyond \"the AI says so.\"", ">\n\nWho is suggesting we do anything “just because an AI said so”? \nDo you read books and think everything in it is true “because the book says so”?", ">\n\nHow do you determine if what the book/ai said is false?\nYou would typically do it through a process of research and discovery.\nPeoples' ability to do research and discovery will be greatly diminished if we rely on AI to do those things for us (which is what the previous posters were suggesting).\nTherefore, reliance on AI will lead to us losing the ability to discern if the results of what the AI is saying is correct.", ">\n\nWhat? Lol that doesn’t make any sense at all. \nIt is not like if we use AI then all previous knowledge is simply forgotten or lost. It’s all still there.", ">\n\nForcing homework at school makes that \"not homework\", and this approach has never worked. You cant reject change, it never works. Every time there has been a game changing event, people adapted. Those who tried to reject change disappeared. Horse carriages disappeared from roads because something else replaced it. Some people supposedly rejected progress, but they are lying to themselves, they still use modern tech or services at some point.\nAnyway, the change is here, and it made essays irrelevant. Time to find another way to test people skills. \nGive it a little time though. ChatGPT costs a ginormous amount of money to run and will not stay free for long either.", ">\n\nIt's not just ChatGPT, the actual innovation is not the interface but lies in algorithms that can recreate natural language of similar quality with smaller data samples. There are also OpenSource datasets like ThePile, etc. so even if OpenAI moves to a paid model (and they will, quickly. You can already sign up to be first in line for the API), there will be other free providers.", ">\n\nHaving coded AIs, I disagree. ChatGPT is a regular trained AI. The novelty is the scale of the operation, and the fact there is a public API.\nNo one ever spent that much money on resources to run and train an AI publicly. I am pretty sure google has done something similar with user data sets to make their search engine and general ecosystem.\nI wish there was a way to have algorithms working with smaller data sets and produce similar results, but it kind of does not work that way.", ">\n\nThere are already tools to identify ChatGPT generated texts. Such tools will improve as another use of literally the same technology.\nJust as teachers submit essays for identifying plagiarism, teachers will submit essays for identifying AI-generated text. \nFurther, a focus could change from grading students on what they know to grading students' ability to ask meaningful, content-based questions about the subject. After all, knowing facts isn't particularly valuable as a skill. Integrating facts and discovering valuable questions is still something that remains a uniquely human skill. And is where people will continue to add value as AI becomes more advanced.", ">\n\nStudents have always been able to 'cheat' on work done outside the classroom, by copying or somehow getting others to do their work for them, even before the internet. Yes with more advanced modern technology it is easier but this has always been a concern. \nAs regular learning environments like supervised classrooms are already 'quarantined' in the way you descibe you are fundementally just suggesting an increase in learning hours as a supplement to homework. This has been suggested by many for various reasons but it would overall cuase more issues than it fixes. It increases work load on teachers and administrators, stretching already thin educational budgets, and forces increased mental strain on children. It would limit their ability to do other recreational and out of ciriculum activities. This would be disruptive and controlling when the quantity of teaching and learning time that children recive is already considered sufficiant for a good education.", ">\n\nHell the only thing stopping me from using ChatGPT regularly for my work now is that it's always at capacity.", ">\n\nApply tests that are hand written, doesnt matter how a person obtains the knowledge, actually learning the subject is most important thing.", ">\n\nThere is no amount of ChatGPT that could influence a good old oral exam where the teacher evaluates the understanding via a little chat.", ">\n\nSo tired of this view. We shouldn’t be fighting technology. Teach kids to use the resources they have to find answers. It’s such a waste of 12 years of school, teaching kids to memorize facts and follow rules. \nInstead, every test should be open book and reward the best answers. Ask the kids to show their work or explain their thought process so we reward understanding of a topic rather than memorization of steps or text.", ">\n\n20 years ago, there were already homework communities and learn groups. Even from the publishers of school books and with free access to tutors. Ok, they didnt do the final homework for me, but gave me a great starting point.\nBeing the kid who transcribes a wiki page was already stupid back then when others could call you out:\nBut I guess the actual problem is lack of digital literacy with teachers, they're always 5-10 years behind.", ">\n\nIf you are testing skills that can be done by free tools on the internet, then you are testing irrelevant skills.\nThe best way to educate kids is to test for skills they need, not skills they objectively don't.\nI was able to witness a couple of universities adapt to tests during quarantine, and follow reports on how the new methods would be used going forward.\nThe results where thus:\nMass offline testing is incredibly cost efficient (one examiner per ~300 students), but the tests results are a poor indicator of real world performance.\nOne to One testing is incredibly expensive, but can, when done right, test actual understanding and performance.\nBoth will be useful, of course. Mass testing is most useful when used in a way that students aren't incentivized to cheat, such as when framed as practice.", ">\n\nOne of the upsides of needing to prevent this kind of tech from cheating assignments is that teachers should focus on having students be able to do their homework at school. (As a former teacher, we were trying to do this already- no more than 15 min of homework per class). \nI dont think we need to do quite what you say. We just need to limit outside electronics and have in-person classrooms or computer labs with programs designed to be AI-proof. \nI have ALWAYS believed that cell phones/internet watches should be stored in school lockers (at most) and never allowed anywhere else on campus during the school day. If anyone needs to contact the students they contact the desk who relays their message/other need. Many schools already do this.", ">\n\n∆\nI agree with this. It would help.", ">\n\nThank you!", ">\n\nThat is utterly pointless.\nThere is no reason to limit the available tools.\nThis just reminds me of the entire \"you won't have a calculator wherever you go\" argument.\nSchool should instead put a focus on responsibly using available tools.", ">\n\nAnd if students choose to use them irresponsibly, what should schools do?\nAnd can you please define what constitutes responsible use? Because despite knowing about plagiarism, people still copy and paste from the internet. Perfect abstinence is easier than perfect moderation after all.", ">\n\nJust return to hand written essays and have more oral exams.", ">\n\n∆l\nActually of all comments having oral exams compliments my post and I agree with you. Enjoy the delta.", ">\n\nIn a Faraday cage.", ">\n\nIf children can just generate work with ChatGPT, it simply shows that children are not being taught anything valuable. (Once ChatGPT responses can be generated in almost unlimited amounts at very low cost, it necessarily means those responses are of low value)\nInstead shouldn't we be teaching children to provide more valuable outcomes that ChatGPT can't replicate?", ">\n\nBeing able to do on your own what ChatGPT does with access to an immense amount of data and processing power is valuable. The actual writing isn't valuable, obviously, but it would be silly to expect it to be. It's just a side effect of practice, you spend time making things of little or no value to build up the skills you'll need to make something that actually matters. That's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\nI think you'd be hard pressed to teach a class of children to outperform ChatGPT in writing without ever asking them to write something that could also be done via AI. What would that even look like?", ">\n\n\nThat's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\n\nIt is a problem. That is why I hated math class until 2nd year of university.", ">\n\nDid you start discovering novel math results in your second year of university, or was that just the point at which you first encountered problems you found interesting, despite the fact that someone else had already solved them before? Thinking back the class you didn't hate, do you think it should be removed if someone can construct an AI to give all the answers you gave?", ">\n\nThis is only a method for evaluating students, it doesn't do anything to educate them.\nChatgpt is potentially a great tool for education but trying to find complex ways around it for homework is pointless. When testing fact retention is required using school/university computers with no web browsing makes sense. For any other test or situation it's a tool that might be used.", ">\n\nI understand OPs concern. That said, I do not think you can create true quarantine for a multitude of reasons. \nThe biggest one is probably time. I worked through high school and university. Because I lived in the middle of nowhere it was about a 30 min drive to high school and then an hour to uni. Having to stay at these quarantine zones to complete assignments would have been hell on my schedule, car, and wallet. \nYou said it yourself, if someone is going to cheat, they will cheat. If I had to do the work in a quarantine zone, what exactly stops me from doing the actual work on my computer at home, printing it all out, and then just writing that into the computer at the quarantine zone? Unless you want to try having students write an entire essay in their hour long class? There has to be a point where they go home and then this falls apart.", ">\n\nThere are already lots of ways to cheat in homework and mostly our steps to deal with that amount to the honour system, and by university level, automated plagiarism detection (which can be quite easily avoided). The point you \"won't argue\" that people will cheat if given the opportunity is probably the actual crux of what's wrong with your suggestion and the part that needs a big [citation needed]. Concluding that the majority of people are fundamentally dishonest is a big assumption to handwave away. \nIf you want an education, cheating is stupid. Ultimately you might get a paper qualification out of it but you'll have actually learned nothing - you won't hold up long against someone who has done it properly when you actually have to apply the skills. Or if you do, then the assignments weren't that crucial to the learning in the first place.", ">\n\nMany of the things I learned in school were largely irrelevant. I couldn't use a calculator to do long division. After I passed those early elementary school years I never did long division again. I wouldn't even argue learning the long division algo is mandatory. It's nice to have learnt it I guess, but I spent way too many hours on it. I can see learning fundamentals of essay writing, etc, are great, but why can't we just evolve to learn more effective things in life? ChatGPT should be used as a tool, not viewed as a detriment.", ">\n\nIt'd suggest that the best way to educate them is to embrace ChatGBT and teach them to use it well. Your method is a bit like teaching kids to do math without calculators or accounting without excel or financial software. There is some value, but it runs out very quickly and you're at a social and competetive disadvantage for taking some archane principled approach to education that is more of a defense of \"how we used to do it\".\nI'm old enough to remember when using a word processor was sometime forbidden for reasons of fairness - that seems entirely disconnected now from doing good work and it's almost hard to envision the thought process of those who thought everything should be hand written for students. \nIsn't the kid who is amazing at utilizing tools like ChatGBT going to do much better in the world than the one who does not? Your idea of \"proper education\" would easily regress back to needing to do all subjects scrawled in dirt with sticks and grunted in non-standardized language.", ">\n\nOR, chatgpt will be a great boon to the entire education system:\nIncreased accessibility: ChatGPT and other AI-powered systems can provide education to individuals who otherwise would not have access to it, due to geographical, financial, or other barriers.\n\nPersonalized learning: ChatGPT can provide personalized education experiences based on each student's strengths, weaknesses, and learning style.\n\n24/7 availability: ChatGPT can operate 24/7, providing students with access to education at any time, anywhere, which can be especially beneficial for those with demanding schedules or for individuals in remote areas.\n\nScalability: ChatGPT can provide education to a large number of students simultaneously, which could help to address the shortage of teachers and resources in some areas.\n\nCost-effectiveness: ChatGPT can be a more cost-effective option for providing education compared to traditional methods, as it does not require physical classrooms or teachers.\n\nImproved student engagement: ChatGPT can provide interactive, engaging learning experiences that can hold students' attention and foster deeper learning.\n\n--Source: ChatGPT", ">\n\nThere a lots of places where texts and exams are “open book”. The questions have to be written differently, and the point is that you’re not testing someone’s ability to memorize, but rather their ability to understand. This is a more difficult test to write, so in theory AI could force education to improve since everyone would a virtual tutor with them at all times.", ">\n\nI'm a teacher and I've been thinking a lot about this the last couple months. Changes within the education system/curriculum/syllabus/retraining of teachers will take far too long to keep up with the ease of access to, and success of, chatgpt and AI in general. \nThe only solution moving forward both short and long term is to embrace it, there is no stopping it now anyway and if we don't all want to be out of a job in 5 years we need to - \n- demonstrate feasible/moral/ethical use of such tools\n- create more opportunities for collaborative learning/hands-on/problem solving tasks and ones that increase communication skills between peers. \nHow this applies to each individual, specific task will vary and must require a lot of creativity and trial and error, but I think relying too heavily on your department of education to handle this (or most 'boots on the ground' problems) will ultimately only degrade a students experience and ability for learning.", ">\n\nI'm with you on what you're trying to accomplish. I just don't know that it's the \"best\" way. \nFor instance, how is homework performed in school superior to trusting the kids to learn the material, which would then be tested by oral exam? And yes, I do believe that asking a student to verbally explain a topic is a really good way to gauge mastery.", ">\n\nThere is not a hope in hell that we'll go back to hand written stuff. That's not how technology works. As the music companies. There are better ways to show you know a subject, for sure, than the current out of-date ones. That's for sure. Have you ever taken an on-line exam?", ">\n\nI argue to let them use chatGPT as it will be their future. This is similar to my generations \"you'll never walk around with a calculator so learn math.\" The future children will grow into a society where work means utilizing AI tech to help them thrive. If chatGPT helps them write an essay, and it's good, it means they're using resources. I agree, however, that we should supplement this with actual reading and writing.", ">\n\nI would argue that most of time that ChatGPT and similar technologies is going to be an issue is in 8-12 grade and college.\nThis technology is not going away, and it's only going to improve. Personally I would treat it like calculators, audio books and spell check.\nTech kids how to use the technology properly. Sure it's somewhat handy to calculate numbers in your head, but having the ability to do math in your head does not give you much of an advantage in today's world and not being able to doesn't hurt you much. But it's still critical to know formulas and how to peace together algebraic statements and word problems. \nKnowing how to spell properly is less important than knowing proper word usage - most times you're writing something it can be spell-checked in real time. Sure it's \"terrible that today's kids...\" don't know how to spell... but it's not going to affect their career. \nEnter ChatGPT - same thing. Should I spend the time to write a white paper on the changing advertising landscape to alert my boss about the a potential seismic shift in advertising revenue, or should I ask ChatGPT to write it? As a user I have to understand its limits and potential copywrite issues, but even more importantly how to verify that what it writes is correct and targeting the right audience. Is data from before 2020 going to be recent and accurate enough for my thesis? How do I supplement the discussion with real-world data? \nThis is our new reality. We should be learning how to use the tools properly, not trying to figure out to lock it down (which frankly makes as much sense as locking down the use of calculators or spell check).", ">\n\nI think there are already apps in place that are able to detect AI generated text (Read this article).\nAlso, I think a better method would be to simply have a database of ChatGPT (could be encrypted) generated text and make it available to already existing software that is use to detect plagiarism (this is just an exemple amongst many)", ">\n\nFrankly I don’t think high schoolers and below should be given homework or tests at all. One learns magnitudes better through exploration as opposed to mindless repetition. Engage with these kids intellectually, make them free thinking Athenians, not bags of knowledge of which they have no idea how to use.\nDoes it not surprise anyone that we train people for over a decade in intellect yet hardly have any intellectuals?", ">\n\nI would argue that society would be better off spending resources on teaching children how to use this tool effectively. Knowing how to get the right answer is what matters in this world.", ">\n\nThen answer this: Well why learn math at all? Seriously.\nWhy learn he concept of subtraction let alone division? I could and society has argued that with the advent of digital calculators. \nYet we learn it. \nLater we use calculators to take the mundane and already known processes to the next level. We abstract away the mundane. \nAs a EE having worked and am working on products you may be using right now to read this, when I develop new silicon and chips I don’t break out Karnaugh maps and lay down circuit using a T square and stencils of gates. But I sure the hell know what I’m doing and expect the tools to do for me. \nTeaching fundamentals of reading, writing, arithmetic, essays, research are just that fundamental.", ">\n\nI’d argue that the vast majority don’t need anything beyond basic math anyways. \nGo ask the average adult if they know the quadratic equation and what it means and you’d probably be disappointed.", ">\n\nChatGPT is here to stay, you'd better advocate for teaching people how to make the most of it and use it wisely instead of pretending it doesn't exist.\nOne of my favourite teachers always told students to use the best tools there are.", ">\n\nI think it depends completely on the topic. In my field of study, it’s fairly easy to come up with term paper assignments that the bot would be useless for. \nLooking back at the paper I wrote last year, I don’t see how any current bot could have helped, as it isn’t able to read or summarize specific sources (yet?).\nAn example of the type of assignments we get is “Discuss the role of state capacity in x and x conflict in light of (specific research paper)‘s dimensions of state capacity - do your findings confirm the findings of (authors), why or why not?\nThis way of combining literature made it difficult even for me to be on top of it, as there were no sources that had attempted this exact combination - it has to be original. \nAlso, I find it’s the best way to learn, because you have to rely on your own judgement and there are no shortcuts, even asking the professor was unhelpful as he wasn’t too familiar with the details.", ">\n\nThis is not the best way.", ">\n\n\nThese homework rooms would have Internet connected computers for use but access to ChatGPT would be filtered and blocked.\n\nThis wouldn't be feasible, there's far too many roundabout ways to still access ChatGPT. Security measures like domain filtering are just unproductive games of whack-a-mole. \nEdit: removed all the other stuff I wrote, as those points have already been mentioned in previous top-level comments.", ">\n\nHomework shouldn’t be the go-to method of “education” to begin with. Imo Universities should focus on the integral part of education: the lectures. Tools like chatgpt can help student who are actually interested in a subject to learn more easily about it, but whether students actually learn anything or not from a class won’t change regardless of if work is authentic or copied from an AI\nSource: I’m a college student and have had experience in both supervised environments where we had to do work without the use of computers/phones and solely-online environments where many students cheated", ">\n\nWhile this could work, it is not necessarily the best way in terms of accessibility and of learning in general. \nFirst, students with ADHD and certain other conditions may not necessarily be the able to be productive at all times, or at the specific time they have to work on those computers, especially if those computers are not in an environment ideal to that specific person. It would also not be very feasible to give students enough time on these computers to complete the bigger assignments and essays. \nSecond, while ChatGPT is quite advanced, it simply works by looking at language patterns and often gets factual details incorrect. For example, with bigger coding problems, it tries to import modules that do not exist or call on functions that it has not defined. In literature, it cannot analyze texts on much more than a surface level. I will admit it can use secondary sources for textual analysis, however, it is unable to come up with a clear thesis on its own. \nAdditionally, take-home tests can be just as easily cheated on using a normal Google search, and usually test thinking skills rather than understanding and knowledge. \nFinally, essay-writing and other types of assignments are generally not ideal for learning as they are only one type of skill, and university professors are recognizing this. Not only do they not work for all learning styles, but they are only used so commonly because of tradition. University professors are structuring assignments around ways that are innovative enough that ChatGPT is unable to work on them. Along with requiring specific readings which the AI might not have access to, and citing of all sources (which has always been a requirement that the AI might trip up on), they are also going away from the traditional essay format into others. For example, I am studying literature, a relatively essay-heavy field, and in my past few courses I have been asked to analyze comics (which the AI cannot read), edit other people’s essays and articles (from past courses), create a mock syllabus or lesson plan with justifications for each reading, and create annotated bibliographies as a stepping stone to an essay. All of these not only require different skills and encourage different types of learning and research but are quite difficult for an AI to do. \nAll in all, while your suggestion is great, the very nature of the AI and the fact that it exists at all is perhaps a sign that the best course of action is to rework the way we think about evaluation. After all, if an evaluation is such that an AI can complete it without the ability to actually think (it works by using observed language patterns), then perhaps the evaluation is not ideal.", ">\n\nI bet teachers and people thought the same thing about calculators when they came out or 1990s internet. AI bots like chat GPT are just a tool.", ">\n\nAll this effectively does is train kids to accomplish goals of a type that do not exist in the real world in a situation they will never realistically encounter. A better goal is adjusting testing criteria to account for this.\nThere might be very specific sets of knowledge for which rote memorization is appropriate, and for those, the air gapped testing may be appropriate. But I believe those are the exception rather than the rule. By and large, teaching kids to effectively utilize the tools that will be available to them is what we should be doing.", ">\n\nImagine learning where the only books are hand written.\nThe printing press took out a huge amount of repetitive labor in the learning process.\nAI/ChatGPT stands a good chance of removing a huge amount knowledge labor which stands between an idea and the end product. Learning to use the AI to best effect the Idea->End Product Chain is more important than worrying about memorizing formulae we will likely never need to remember. \nThe effort to restrict ChatGPT is just education system worrying about their Cheese Being Moved.", ">\n\nThis just doesn't make any sense to me. You're arguing that we shouldn't allow students to use tools they would have at their disposal in a real working environment, and for what? Why wouldn't you want students to use every tool at their disposal? How exactly is handicapping them helping them to understand the coursework?\nA much better approach would be to fundamentally alter how we teach to better prepare them for the workforce. Encouraging collaboration and creative problem solving skills is much more practical and effective.", ">\n\nChatGPT may pass the Bar, but I highly doubt it will replace lawyers or other professionals. \nThe whole point of credentialing is to drive accountability. Anyone can study the law and cite precedent without a law degree. Actually representing a client in a court of law requires oversight and knowledge. ChatGPT isn't perfect - it will make mistakes from time to time. So who is responsible when it makes a mistake? When is a client (who is not familiar with the law) supposed to know that a mistake has been made on their behalf? For this reason, until ChatGPT is literally perfect you're always going to need a credentialed professional to review the output.\nFor the record, I think ChatGPT is wonderful. But it's a tool that people will use, not a full-fledged replacement for professionals. My employer (a Fortune 500 company) has already rejected its use for internal projects. IT has the website blocked.", ">\n\nThe kids that are educated without its use will fall behind in business when faced with kids that are using it to its fullest extent.\nYou've successfully made an argument for people to succeed in a test that is worthless in the real world. Its parameters don't match.", ">\n\nThe best way to educate children is to teach them skills and strategies that will actually serve them in the workplace of the future. \nChatGPT already has reached the point of replacing humans (See Buzzfeed news). If ChatGPT can take the test or do the homework then what value is that education going to be to these students? Especially older students will quickly see rote memorization as a waste of time and so yes they probably will cheat if they have the opportunity. Trying to force these things to be “learned” and prove that knowledge by brute force banning things is going to be a costly uphill battle.", ">\n\nWhat if we modify how essays are written by students, by asking them to include citations (which is something ChatGPT can’t do)?\nWe can’t stop new tools from making old methods obsolete. But we can focus on enhancing critical thinking of students in a stepwise manner. When a new tool is created, think about how you can adapt rather than resist it.", ">\n\nWhy not just train an ai to spot ai written papers?", ">\n\nWhat about gradually putting more emphasis on oral assignments?", ">\n\nEverything you said makes perfect sense...IF the goal was to teach children simply how to write the perfect standard essay. But that is a very limited way of viewing education and what its real goal is. The real goal of education is to teach children how to think. To come up with the right questions, not just the right answers. In a world where a \"good enough\" essay on literally anything can be conjured as if by magic by a machine, what's the actual value of that exercise now? For a very long time teachers have used the essay as a way to evaluate how a person thinks. Now that a machine can write it for you, we need new ways to evaluate how students think. That's the real task we are facing. Fuck the essay, just like we ditched the slide rule for calculators and later computers, etc. Tools change but the real game remains the same: Think for yourself!", ">\n\nI'd say the best way would be to accept the reality of changing technology and reevaluating the approach we have towards education as a whole.\nGranted, I'd say that's only one half of the picture: reassessing how we conceive if jobs and labour in the face of increasing automation goes along with that, and I think neither really works without the other.\nBottom line is that human labour is more and more obsolete as time goes on, so human jobs will be less and less in demand (I'd argue moving away from a capitalistic system is the right call, but even if you don't, automation is still an incentive).\nSince a large part of the incentive of our current education system is \"prepare you for a job\" I think the whole thing is going to fall short in light of these kinds of systems developing.\nTheres lots of people now who pursue knowledge as a project of passion, rather than a means to an end, and I think moving to a system that supports and encourages that kind of ambition is the way to go.", ">\n\nI disagree. We should learn to use the tools we have efficiently. Otherwise you are not learning for your career but for some professors ego", ">\n\nThat’s not “education in the era of ChatGPT.” That’s education in the era before ChatGPT while we figure out what the world with ChatGPT will look like so we have some idea of what to do with it.\nThat’s also not “educating,” that’s just “assessment.” Assessment is simply a measuring system for education. As long as you think of the acquisition of knowledge and skill as requiring knowledge regurgitation and skill performance in isolation and divorced from context/individualized, then you’re going to end up at necessitating a kind of geofenced, Luddite assessment model. The training itself predicates the assessment method. How we assess is defined by how we teach, and vice versa.\nThe best assessment method to gauge understanding is, and always has been, conversation.\nAll we need to do is pair assessment with regular conversation between qualified teacher and student to determine if personal comprehension is present. Not an interview, not an interrogation — conversation. Problem solving performance contexts are also great revealer of internalized knowledge and skill.\nChatGPT is a relative nonissue if your approach to assessment is at all human.\nIt’s only a problem when you’re trying to mechanize and dehumanized education. “Rigorous” does not mean “mechanical.” We are going to have to trust the professional, knowledge- and skill-assessing judgements of humans who already know and can do.\nEducation reverts to having more emphasis on apprenticeship and mentorship models, where the relationship itself is part of the learning process. \n(The “accountability!” cranks are gonna love that…)", ">\n\nI have a strong suspicion that discussions like this, while very interesting, will be obsolete long before any changes can actually be implemented in schools. In fact, I'm pretty sure schools will be gone entirely in the near future.\nAs of right now, you can be taught almost any subject by an exceptionally well-spoken, fast and infinitely patient teacher called GPT to a university level, if not higher. Try it right now - go ask GPT to explain the political situation that allowed Alexander the Great to conquer Persia, or ask it to explain the raytracing algorithm. If there's a part you don't understand, ask it to clarify. You'll be amazed how accessible it makes advanced topics.\nNow, how long before we have VR software with a realistic-looking AI teacher, with an AI-generated voice, who can do the same thing, but respond to students' voices and use body language and visual demonstrations? Five years?\nHow long after that before this tech is cheap, and of such high quality that sending your kids to school will be a worse education?\nNow in, say, 20 years, we could have an AI system that takes a DNA sample, analyses a students genotype to understand what subjects they will be naturally good at, what education approaches will be most successful, and continuously improves its model of the student's behavior by observing them. It crafts a decades-long education journey tailored to the individual, and accompanies them the entire way.\nTeachers, as far as they've existed so far, don't have a chance.", ">\n\nAre you trying to test someone or teach them?\nIf the latter, why do you care about cheating? This reminds me of the ol' teachers who used to restrict calculators because \"you won't always have a calculator with you.\"", ">\n\nYou forget that for 99% of homework students could just copy each other's work. Having the answers out in the world accessible is not a new problem. You just make homework a small part of the grades and you make sure students understand it's important to actually do it or they won't do well on the tests.", ">\n\nThere are so many people that can’t do the basic math examples you mentioned somewhere and they went to school at a time when there were no calculators.\nOn the other hand I was allowed to use calculators in school pretty much the moment I left elementary school and I am really quite good at math even without assistance.\nTool usage is one of humanities key features and trying to work against it instead of finding ways to incorporate new technology into school and life seems backwards.", ">\n\nIronically the teacher will have to use an AI to decipher the \"hand written\" assignments.", ">\n\nYou can't force people to learn.", ">\n\nWhat about teaching how to think rather than how to memorize? Just a thought 💭", ">\n\nThey need to get rid of homework, and have students do their work while they're at school. It's awful, they just pile it on, even if a class only has a little homework that day, there's like 6 or 7 classes so it's a nightmare for students. Seems like the only way to prevent cheating is have them do work in class, so I hope for the students sake, they do that.", ">\n\nI’ll throw my idea into the ring, though we’re still a few years off from this technology:\nWe should have students interact with AI tutors that can prompt them questions and point out details. Then they can collaborate on assignments, and the AI tutor can give feedback and suggest snippets. The AI can evaluate their work and their engagement with the material.", ">\n\nOne of Transformers main applications is in search. Ie you get a set of embeddings you can compare the pairwise distances between embedding and get a list of scores that tell you which embeddings are most similar to the input. \nEssentially tools like google are made to reduce the search space for a given query collect likely links and then rerank the most likely results. \nChatgpt basically does this in a more direct way of searching through a space of potential responses. Basically trained on a task to predict next token given the previous tokens or fill in a mask\nTransformers permeate everything students use from the recommendation algorithms on TikTok Facebook, YouTube to search systems in google. \nIn my opinion students should absolutely not be taught to fear these tools tho I do agree they be tested in constrained environments to challenge them. Current systems should not be used to learn unless you have a clear understanding and are willing to check every word and check your reasoning. Future systems will be much better though so this problem isn’t going anywhere. \nIf anything there should be a push to make these ideas more interpretable to a younger audience and give them the tools to navigate an increasingly complex market of ideas. They should be aware of the limitations and how when they use a piece of software their actions and the actions of those around them are influencing what they see next. \nIt should be used and taught with rigor. \nIt’s programming 2.0", ">\n\nDude no; \nChatGPT is the computer. \nDo you want to be the education system that banned the computer and then wondered why all the other education systems output modern tech workers, while your education system kept outputting chimney sweeps and car factory workers?", ">\n\nHW only exists to make students practice, and generally is worth less than 20% of the grade in a class. If a student chooses to use chat GPT to bypass it then that’s the student’s loss.\nUltimately exams are what schools use to evaluate a students knowledge and I don’t think that’s going to change anytime soon", ">\n\nThere are already programs that check if something was written by an AI or not. Also no student I know actually uses chatGPT for major assignments because chatGPT doesn’t know every text to ever be published so it doesn’t understand the context, and most of the time will just bullshit an answer that’s incorrect.\nEveryone I know that uses chatGPT for school do so for either for assignments so small and simple that it doesn’t make sense to quarantine, or they use it as a more advanced google that can answer questions more accurately than a search engine could, essentially just saving time.\n(most) students are using chatGPT largely as a productivity and time management tool rather than to cheat.", ">\n\nThis is like saying “in the age of calculators, the only way to ensure kids learn maths is to ban calculators in school”. If looked at correctly, chatgpt is an effect multiplier, learning just has to be rejigged to have kids learn to do things that they can’t simply ask chatgpt to do for them.", ">\n\nLess course work and more exams is the future in a world with chatGPT.", ">\n\nChatGPT will be a big no issue soon. I work in a research field and this was something we worried about last year. As of now there are multiple tools and even more being developed that catch the use of ChatGPT. There has been research published that list ChatGPT as a co-author, but for most research, and use by students, it will simply be forbidden and will easily be caught as well. The program does well but it has a particular style that can be caught. Again it will be a non-issue soon.", ">\n\nThis is like forbidding people to use a calculator because it can give you the result instant. A better way is to teach them how to use the calculator, because its here now and won't go away. Same with GPT. Children can learn way better/faster with ChatGPD if used correctly. Imaging having a private teacher for free which helps you learning every time of the day.", ">\n\nLet me ask you this. If ChatGPT could complete a students whole assignment, what would that student have learned from doing that assignment on their own that won’t simply be replaced with ChatGPT by a employer in the future?\nEven if ChatGPT doesn’t replace workers for a decade, why teach students skills that will inevitably be replaced and leave said students jobless in a decade?\nChatGPT won’t only be used in the workforce either. Linus Tech Tips has a video showing how ChatGPT can help people learn new skills and do troubleshooting on their own. If I remember correctly, he manages to completely build a pc by only strictly following what ChatGPT tells him to. It even managed to suggest the best parts for that computers specific use case. It was nowhere near perfect, but in the future it will get there.\nSince ChatGPT is such a useful tool in the workforce and at home, I think it’s crucial we teach students how to use it instead of banning them from it. Maybe students should be given a problem and tasked to use ChatGPT to find the solution or have students attempt to learn a new topic with ChatGPT. I’m not a teacher, I just thought of those examples of the top of my head. I’m sure qualified teachers could think of better assignments than me.\nI could see ChatGPT helping a mechanic diagnose an issue so the mechanic could spend more time fixing the problem rather than diagnosing and I can think of a few examples in other jobs as well where ChatGPT will help a worker be more efficient and save more time.\nI think, if anything, we’re setting students up for failure by not teaching them about these tools that will take over the workforce and help in everyday life.", ">\n\nYou’ll still have to pass a test. Relax.", ">\n\nIt “fairs” extremely well? Maybe some additional time spent observing ChatGPT could actually benefit some", ">\n\nThere’s just no way you can use ChatGPT to do all of your work for you and be successful at any moderately high level of academic pursuit. Not without learning the material yourself, and if you’ve done that, I don’t think it matters so much whether you used chatGPT and for what along the way.\nFrankly if you start our using chatGPT early in school, you won’t even be able to ask the right questions in the right way and include the necessary refinements to do more complex and demanding assignments down the road. \nAlso, tests are still a thing aren’t they? ChatGPT doesn’t help you perform in person in a monitored environment - not in a way that would allow you to skip learning the material. I don’t really get this aspect of your cmv. As long as tests don’t allow access to ChatGPT, anyone who didn’t learn the material is going to be exposed..", ">\n\nThere are already programs that detect ChatGPT writing.", ">\n\nThe children who want to cheat will always find a way to do so. It doesn’t matter how much you do to restrict it, it’ll just make them find new means of doing so. \nSource: I did GCSE’s in the UK, AP in the US. Trust, kids will cheat even in sterile environments. Especially if it’s a huge room and there are few moderators. A lot of us are scared of repercussions but those who aren’t won’t let anything stand in there way—region and proctoring be damned.", ">\n\nI require them to complete an outline first. Outline must be submitted to me before I take the essay. Google doc lets you see that they write it and when each sentence was written. It’s helped.", ">\n\nCHATGPT is a tool, and in some applications (not all), it can help students do their homework. Consider the calculator. Do students not need to learn formulas and critical thinking just because they can punch numbers into calculators?\nNo, math is still a skill that is valuable if for no other reason then because it trains your brain to solve problems.\nOne of the things that surprises me is that ChatGPT can use words and explain things to students even when a teacher is not available or when there isn’t one. we should consider this an educational opportunity rather than a disadvantage.\nThere are so many amazing things we humans can do when we simply have tools to help us. ChatGPT is no different.", ">\n\nYou can’t force people to live in the past. Chat GPT is here to stay. Education now needs to focus on teaching people how to use AI, and how to develop a skill that can’t be replaced by AI.", ">\n\nHow about getting students engaged in what they’re learning and excited to learn. Find what they’re good at and double down on it. Don’t make school a fucking quarantine bubble. Socialize, allow them to teach and learn from each other. Replace the potential for cheating with collaboration assignments in person. “Children will cheat if given the opportunity” is such horse shit. If somebody doesn’t know or wasn’t taught something well then yea they’re gonna look to get it right so they can obtain approval. How about teaching them so they won’t cheat??", ">\n\nThats not it. I don’t have an answer for you, but thats not it.", ">\n\nHow about just have the kids do a presentation on \"their\" report with Q&A at the end. They'll have no choice but to know the info.... which is the point.", ">\n\nWell, making an AI that detects if something was made by an AI shouldnt be hard", ">\n\nI wonder if anyone has tried training a machine to look at assignments and give a confidence interval of the assignment being either human or machine in origin.", ">\n\nYeah we call that stuff examns...", ">\n\nThe problem with your suggested approach is that it just reinforces the current failures of the education system. It doesn't actually teach us the skills that you will be able to use in the field. \n\nYou can look up formulas for physics and you can double check online for any coding questions. Chat gpt is a tool and I think forbidding students from using it will just be a disservice to them and everyone in the future. It's not going to go away any time soon so how about instead of teaching children to cheat more effectively, we teach them how to use chat gpt to its full potential? It can speed up so many tasks to such a degree that students will be able to recieve more advanced education in the time that was saved by using chat gpt", ">\n\nI mean, there are plenty of good reasons already said, but wouldn't it just be easy to cheat. You get home, ask Chat.gpt for a result, print it out. Bring it with you to the school quarantine, copy it into the computer. (Unless you would like a full strip search of the students upon entering, which is wrong in so many ways)" ]
> Great idea! While let's just ignore the real world and keep our heads in the sand. Let's also get rid of computers and ink pens and go back to stone and chisel!	[ "/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^\| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.", ">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?", ">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.", ">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?", ">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.", ">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?", ">\n\nYou mean a grade?", ">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication", ">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.", ">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)", ">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.", ">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.", ">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.", ">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.", ">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?", ">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.", ">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.", ">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.", ">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.", ">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.", ">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.", ">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.", ">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.", ">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.", ">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.", ">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.", ">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.", ">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.", ">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use", ">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.", ">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.", ">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.", ">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.", ">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.", ">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.", ">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.", ">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).", ">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.", ">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.", ">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.", ">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.", ">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.", ">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.", ">\n\n\nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \n\nWhy? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it. \n\nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \n\nWhy? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? \nLet's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project. \n\nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.\n\nTotally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator.", ">\n\nFor the most part, knowledge workers perform a given amount of work in a given amount of hours, and the number of them hired by a company is TotalHoursNeeded/NumHoursPerEmployee. E.g. if you have 100 manyears of work to get done in a typical year, you employ 100 people.\nChat GPT isn't going to \"replace\" people wholesale, because as you say someone still needs to supervise it. But it looks to be on track to increase the productivity of programmers (can write a first draft of code and finds many of the bugs instantly). \nSame for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones. \nSo now the TotalNeeded is decreased by some percentage, let's say 10% to start. Now you only need 90 human programmers to do that same work. With 25% efficiency gain, you need 75. With 50%, 50. Etc. \nOr take translation jobs. Today, an editor spends roughly 3 minutes per word editing machine translated text, and 1 minute per word editing human-translated text. As long as editors are more expensive per hour than first translation people, it still makes sense much of the time to hire translators, because the software isn't free. \nBut the graph of machine translation \"efficiency\" is trending towards taking the same amount of time to edit as a human translator. As soon as that's hit, there's literally no reason to hire human translators, only editors. \nAnd if the editing time goes down to 30 seconds/word because of further AI assistance to the editor, you only need half as many of those.", ">\n\nThere is currently two better solutions being worked on - one of which is already being used to some degree. \nThe first is ChatGPT developers themselves making moves to make AI written works to be identified by \"watermark\" or similar. I don't thi k this one has taken effect at all yet. \nAnother is by a separate dev team that allows teachers to use software to determine the amount of an essay, for example, that is written by AI what the likelihood of any one sentence or paragraph to have been written by AI. This allows the teachers to use discretion when determining if the student used the AI in a way that they find acceptable or not. This way instead kf running from the scary AI educators can actually utilize tyhe AI with students to help them develop their writing and other communications.", ">\n\nWhat about kids with transportation issues? When I was in school I knew kids that drove almost an hour each way to get there. I certainly couldn’t have asked my parents to drop everything to take me all the way to school so I could do my homework if I forgot. Bus schedules? Do you think schools want to waste more money by burning more gas for extra routes? I understand where you’re coming from, but for a fair amount of children—especially in poorer, more rural areas—that getting to school and back is such a delicate balancing act that such a thing would just punish them.", ">\n\nI've seen a few key things from academics testing out ChatGPT (I have not signed up myself):\n\nIt tends to produce confident, convincing nonsense. It doesn't actually understand what it's writing about, and I hear it shows.\nIt makes up citations. Real authors in the field, real journals... but made-up titles. Things like that, since, again, it doesn't actually understand citations.\n\nThis suggests that, for assignments requiring the demonstration of genuine, in-depth understanding, and not merely the ability to summarize facts, ChatGPT will fail.\nA similar example that you bring up in the comments is programming cheat sheets into calculators - but for well-designed engineering exams (including the licensure exams, at least in the US), cheat sheets are fine and often either allowed or provided. A well-designed exam tests the ability to apply principles, not knowledge of equations, so a cheat sheet is harmless, or even allows the exam to work better (since people aren't distracted with memorizing equations).", ">\n\nThere are three criticisms that I have of this approach. \n\n\nShould we not teach to the environment that we live in? Yes, education often imposes arbitrary constraints like time tests but for research and reports why not let people use and work around all resources? If you can work around chat gpt to work efficiently, then do it. You learn what it can and can’t do and how to use it effectively as a tool. \n\n\nCan chatGPT on it’s own actually write a good essay? From what I have seen it can pull together a few sources. It can generally write fluff based on other things that it has seen. But it struggles to write analysis. It can’t interrogate a source or make value judgements. It could be useful for doing some filler or providing ideas but if to do an actual report, I think it would be insufficient. \n\n\nAn assignment that can be done using chatgpt is probably boring. Here I am writing an essay for no reason other than I find it interesting to discuss this topic. Perhaps, we arent giving students interesting enough assignments or we are overloading them to the point that they don’t have the time to engage? If chatGPT turns out to be an issue maybe it’s more of an indictment of the structures and norms of education.", ">\n\n\n\nhomework in the form of essays, take home tests, coding assignments, would be completed on school grounds. \n\n\nCongratulations, you've invented the \"cram school\".\nI'd recommend reading through your post again and actually thinking about the things you've said. Because essentially, you're merely advocating for the wholesale elimination of homework and for education outside of that to remain totally unchanged. It's almost literally, \"Make the school day 30% longer\".\nMy solution to the \"problem\" of students potentially using ChatGPT to cheat on homework: I don't think you need a hilariously convoluted system of homework \"boiler rooms\" redolent of national security apparatus, that requires schools to adopt ruinously expensive and disruptive technological and administrative changes.\nIt would be sufficient if we institute a system whereby teachers are encouraged to, let's say... \"test\" their students, whether by regular written exams or by talking to them in what I'll call \"classes\", to ensure they understand the material they've been assigned to learn.\nThis method ensures that students cannot use AI homework bots to coast through classes (since they'll literally be found out the very next class), and has the added benefit of not adding three hours to every teacher's day.", ">\n\nWhat about pen and ink?", ">\n\narguably I can just copy a ChatGPT output by hand. So I think that is a first level measure, but not a complete solution.", ">\n\nIt's a better solution than prison just because the curriculum can't keep up with technology.\nWhen calculators arrived on everyone's phone and everyone's pocket did you advocate for the same solution? Unlikely, so why only now with this system?", ">\n\nWell I did and I was. When I was studying engineering in the 80s we routinely could not arrive at exams with a calculator. Even then calculators were programmable enough to allow students to write cheat sheets in calculator memory.\nIt forced us to memorize equations, principals of engineering, and independent thinking. I’m a better engineer because I did.", ">\n\nSo you're what, almost 60? And you think what's best for children is to be like you? Don't you think you may be a bit out of touch?\nAlso, your view was about K12 students, not engineering students.", ">\n\nNo. As I replied, leaning on tools as a crutch all your life will limit your ability and function as a human. For example, you could argue that basic math isn’t necessary. As matter of fact that was an argument years ago with the advent of calculators.\nHowever, humans should be able to exist and functions without a digital crutch. You should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator. You should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google. There are basic elements of duration necessary since we are all still wet grey matter.", ">\n\n\nYou should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator\n\nBut why?\n\nYou should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google\n\nAgain, why?\nWhere do you get your \"should\" from?\nI have basically all human knowledge in my hand, every equation or conversion I'll ever need day to day, even every language I'll likely ever encounter. Why shouldn't I leave my brain free to think about what it wants and to use my incredible resource as and when it's needed?\nDo you envision some Saw-like situation where you're locked to a wall and need to solve maths equations at pain of death?", ">\n\nThe less you use your brain the less likely your body is to maintain it. Our body functions through a use or lose it principle. Just look people who lose movement function/muscle just by being bedridden for a long time. Our brain is not different.\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.", ">\n\nIs wasting resources on process you can deletage outside not using your brain? You free up that space to put to what you decide is important.\n\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.\n\nThe weakest man with a gun can take out the strongest bodybuilder.", ">\n\nAnd if you decide Tik tok and Netflix are important? How do you think that will affect the cognitive ability of kids?\nI didn't mention strength nor physical strength. And even then the strongest man with a gun will probably take out the weakest man with a gun.(An actual fair comparison)", ">\n\nCouldn't chatgpt (or somesuch AI) be asked \"Hey - did you write this?\" and nip this sort of thing in the bud?", ">\n\nNo, Chat GPT doesn't remember everything it's said, the potential things it could say are huge and even if someone wrote something that Chat GPT might say, it could be a coincidence.", ">\n\nWell, strike that idea then.\nStill though - there must be some way to use AI to deal with this. \"set a thief to catch a thief\" and all that.", ">\n\nChat GPT (and most generative AIs) use GANs to generate content. \nIn laymen's terms (and extremely simplified as it's above my level of understanding) a GAN is 2 AI systems competing against each other, a creator AI that creates content and a checker AI that decides if the content was genuine or made by the other AI. \nSo any automated way to tell if it's AI generated can be built into the checker AI in future versions and the creator AI will learn to avoid whichever features the checker AI is spotting.", ">\n\nChatGPT is just another mechanism for reducing the need for labor, and it's not going away. \nChildren will need to be educated in both how to make effective use of it (for as long as it's not sufficient to completely eliminate mental labor), and also in the ethics of not using it. Always forcing them to write in airgapped places isn't going to do that, it just makes them resent it. \nAlso: essay writing on a scale needed to really learn long-form writing is not very amenable to doing in an airgapped classroom, because honestly we're not using dead-tree sources of information anymore already, so doing their research pretty much has to include doing it on line. \nBut really: laborious manual long-form essay writing is going to go the way of penmanship and looking things up in a library as an unneeded skill very quickly. We need children to adjust to that reality of the modern world rather than pretending it will go away. \nPeople are still needed (for now) to do the important part of writing essays without doing the laborious bit that ChatGPT automates anyway: deciding what to write, and editing it into a convincing and well-written form. \nForcing kids to spend a lot of time learning how to write the basic bulk part of essays is a lot like teaching them how to make buggy-whips in shop class: a pointless exercise. \nIt would be better to give them all prewritten ChatGPT essays and have them learn the limitations and capabilities.", ">\n\nIs ChatGPT really that much more effective than just grabbing things off Wikipedia? I was asking it things about elections and it was just Wikipedia from two years ago", ">\n\nThe answer is NEVER to limit technology. It’s to teach the new generation how to use that technology to achieve the same goal.\nIt’s pointless to ban computers and teach the memorization of dates in history class. It’s much more productive to teach online research skills so that if an individual needs to know the date of a particular moment in history, they can reliably Google it.\nChatGPT is the same. It renders writing essays as pointless, and it necessitates the teachers to adapt to new teaching styles, such as teaching the skills on how best to manipulate ChatGPT to return the information you need.", ">\n\nI was banned from using programming calculators when I studied engineering in the 80s during exams. It forced the students to all be on the same level playing field and forced us to actually know the equations, their applications, and the processes of whatever engineering course I was taking.\nIt made us better engineers.", ">\n\nHow does handicapping you make you a better engineer? If I put you and an engineer trained with technology in the same room together, who do you think would accomplish the task faster?", ">\n\nThe handicapped engineer, easily. The point of forcing students to actually learn the material is so that they understand how to reason about the underlying processes when they need to troubleshoot something going wrong, and understand the tradeoffs between approaches and how to select the best one for the task. \nOnce you understand things deeply you don't actually need training in doing things quickly because it's immediately intuitive how to apply a technological process to save time. The guy that leaned heavily on technology is basically fucked if he has to use a technique or software that he didn't specifically train on since he doesn't have a good foundation to abstract from. It would be more appropriate to call this person a technician.", ">\n\nThe purpose of calculators is to do the menial part of the work, not to solve whole processes. The engineer that learned with calculators likely knows how to select the right process to solve a problem, but uses the calculator to do the math faster and with fewer errors.", ">\n\nAt the college level, we’re not talking about tools to add and multiply. We’re talking about tools like Wolfram Alpha that do entire symbolic manipulations for you. If I took a calculus class and on all the assignments used Wolfram Alpha to find derivatives, do you think I would have learned anything?\nThat is what ChatGPT is doing for essays", ">\n\nThere are things called pencil and paper.", ">\n\nAs I said, this is the first line defense. However as I already commented to another user. I can simply hand copy ChatGPT output. Essentially not doing my own independent research, writing, coding, and studying.", ">\n\nWhy don't you consider that research? \nThe first source was the best. It's incredibly efficient research IMO.", ">\n\nThe idea of tool removal has always been flawed. From calculators to chat GPT and beyond. If your test is so flimsy that a simple tool invalidates it then the test is poorly built. Test shouldn't be simple busywork tasks, they should require thinking, problem solving, complex thought. If it's just a game of memorization that can be cheated by answers on a paper, you've built a bad test.\nover memorization (which is what our current school systems teach) is not only unhelpful, but also harmful. We live in an era of wikipedia being a reliable source, of vast access to tools both online and phsycial. We should be teaching kids they should do the work but with the help of those tools, not despite them.\nThe main issue with your argument is that based on what you've said, i can assume you think the current school system is a good one but so many studies have shown that at least here in the US, the school systems are some of the worst in the world. It's this memorize, ignore tools, singular focus mentality that plays such a big role.\nIf we were more creative with education, incorporating tool utilization into the learning process, we'd likely have a major improvement to our educational successes. I could go on about how the education system prefers certain kinds of students over others, and how many students are left behind simply because they don't learn like other kids and are therefore punished, but I won't. All I'll say is that more restrictions on how and what kids learn isn't going to help them learn more or better.\nand in 15 years when chat GPT is a part of daily life in every single company on the planet in some way or another (which I'm beyond certain it will be), kids who were taught how to properly utilize it will have just such a huge advantage in the workforce over those who weren't", ">\n\nRather than attempt to find ways to prevent new technology from interfering with existing pedagogy, shouldn't we review and revise pedagogy as new technology develops? \nIf a chat AI program can write these things, what is the point of having humans repeatedly do the same work? We don't expect people to use an abacus when doing math, or limit their research to what's in the library card catalogue, or require printed paper publications as essay resources; we adapted to the calculator, and to the internet and search engines. So too should we adapt to things like ChatGPT, not by trying to pretend it doesn't exist, but by finding ways to incorporate it into a more holistic approach to learning.\nRather than chain kids to an airgapped room on school grounds outside of school hours to do homework that's of dubious educational value in the first place, we should take this as an opportunity to refocus schooling on in-class engagement and direct instruction. ChatGPT and programs like it are showing us yet another thing we as humans can outsource to our technology, so why struggle to do things in a more difficult and inefficient way?", ">\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\nIn addition, AI is only as good as the data it is fed. You must still be able to do the work on your own to analyze when the AI is giving valid outputs (garbage in, garbage out). This is especially true, when AI runs the risks of being owned or operated by those with a specific agenda. Can you imagine the trouble that would result if people relied on AI to determine who to vote for, but someone was able to pay the operators to have the AI promote them?\nRelying on AI to do our work for us is a distillation of an appeal to authority fallacy on a large scale (if the AI says it, it must be true).", ">\n\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\n\nThis is something I worry about A LOT when it comes to AI. Our collective understanding of the subjects that we usually classify as \"the humanities\" is constantly evolving as we learn more, and especially as a more diverse set of people are allowed to study, research and put forth opinions and arguments.\nImagine if students were outsourcing all their history, psychology, sociology and philosophy homework to a chatbot with a 1950s understanding of those subjects.\nImagine doctors outsourcing psych patient diagnoses to a chatbot with the same understanding.\nOn an arguably less \"serious\" but still critically important moral and political topic, imagine if all/most videogame art was outsourced to an AI engine with a 1990s sensibility for female characters. Same for all kinds of representation and diversity.\nHow about politics and political science in general... ha!\nEtc, etc etc.\nIt is NOT the case that we already have discovered all the true answers to the big questions, and we can merely turn to a \"knowledge calculator\" like ChatGPT to spit out the truth.\nEven if AI can pretty accurately reflect the discourse of the day, as it is currently understood and accepted, our collective knowledge and culture will stagnate if we do not actively participate in developing it, and we will all pay the price for that.", ">\n\nThese are all moralistic arguments that ultimately don’t mean anything.", ">\n\nI would say they are more epistemic arguments, which do matter greatly in the context of education (which is what the op was referring to).", ">\n\nAre any of these things mentioned actually realistic concerns? Someone is going to train an AI bot to generate 90s female art characters with big tits?\nNo. Lol and even if someone did, who cares?", ">\n\nConsidering how many people believe obviously fake stories that have no supporting evidence (and in spite of contrary evidence), yes, I believe they are very real concerns.\nIf an AI says we should use Brawndo in farming because its got what plants crave (electrolytes), we should probably be able to justify it with reasoning beyond \"the AI says so.\"", ">\n\nWho is suggesting we do anything “just because an AI said so”? \nDo you read books and think everything in it is true “because the book says so”?", ">\n\nHow do you determine if what the book/ai said is false?\nYou would typically do it through a process of research and discovery.\nPeoples' ability to do research and discovery will be greatly diminished if we rely on AI to do those things for us (which is what the previous posters were suggesting).\nTherefore, reliance on AI will lead to us losing the ability to discern if the results of what the AI is saying is correct.", ">\n\nWhat? Lol that doesn’t make any sense at all. \nIt is not like if we use AI then all previous knowledge is simply forgotten or lost. It’s all still there.", ">\n\nForcing homework at school makes that \"not homework\", and this approach has never worked. You cant reject change, it never works. Every time there has been a game changing event, people adapted. Those who tried to reject change disappeared. Horse carriages disappeared from roads because something else replaced it. Some people supposedly rejected progress, but they are lying to themselves, they still use modern tech or services at some point.\nAnyway, the change is here, and it made essays irrelevant. Time to find another way to test people skills. \nGive it a little time though. ChatGPT costs a ginormous amount of money to run and will not stay free for long either.", ">\n\nIt's not just ChatGPT, the actual innovation is not the interface but lies in algorithms that can recreate natural language of similar quality with smaller data samples. There are also OpenSource datasets like ThePile, etc. so even if OpenAI moves to a paid model (and they will, quickly. You can already sign up to be first in line for the API), there will be other free providers.", ">\n\nHaving coded AIs, I disagree. ChatGPT is a regular trained AI. The novelty is the scale of the operation, and the fact there is a public API.\nNo one ever spent that much money on resources to run and train an AI publicly. I am pretty sure google has done something similar with user data sets to make their search engine and general ecosystem.\nI wish there was a way to have algorithms working with smaller data sets and produce similar results, but it kind of does not work that way.", ">\n\nThere are already tools to identify ChatGPT generated texts. Such tools will improve as another use of literally the same technology.\nJust as teachers submit essays for identifying plagiarism, teachers will submit essays for identifying AI-generated text. \nFurther, a focus could change from grading students on what they know to grading students' ability to ask meaningful, content-based questions about the subject. After all, knowing facts isn't particularly valuable as a skill. Integrating facts and discovering valuable questions is still something that remains a uniquely human skill. And is where people will continue to add value as AI becomes more advanced.", ">\n\nStudents have always been able to 'cheat' on work done outside the classroom, by copying or somehow getting others to do their work for them, even before the internet. Yes with more advanced modern technology it is easier but this has always been a concern. \nAs regular learning environments like supervised classrooms are already 'quarantined' in the way you descibe you are fundementally just suggesting an increase in learning hours as a supplement to homework. This has been suggested by many for various reasons but it would overall cuase more issues than it fixes. It increases work load on teachers and administrators, stretching already thin educational budgets, and forces increased mental strain on children. It would limit their ability to do other recreational and out of ciriculum activities. This would be disruptive and controlling when the quantity of teaching and learning time that children recive is already considered sufficiant for a good education.", ">\n\nHell the only thing stopping me from using ChatGPT regularly for my work now is that it's always at capacity.", ">\n\nApply tests that are hand written, doesnt matter how a person obtains the knowledge, actually learning the subject is most important thing.", ">\n\nThere is no amount of ChatGPT that could influence a good old oral exam where the teacher evaluates the understanding via a little chat.", ">\n\nSo tired of this view. We shouldn’t be fighting technology. Teach kids to use the resources they have to find answers. It’s such a waste of 12 years of school, teaching kids to memorize facts and follow rules. \nInstead, every test should be open book and reward the best answers. Ask the kids to show their work or explain their thought process so we reward understanding of a topic rather than memorization of steps or text.", ">\n\n20 years ago, there were already homework communities and learn groups. Even from the publishers of school books and with free access to tutors. Ok, they didnt do the final homework for me, but gave me a great starting point.\nBeing the kid who transcribes a wiki page was already stupid back then when others could call you out:\nBut I guess the actual problem is lack of digital literacy with teachers, they're always 5-10 years behind.", ">\n\nIf you are testing skills that can be done by free tools on the internet, then you are testing irrelevant skills.\nThe best way to educate kids is to test for skills they need, not skills they objectively don't.\nI was able to witness a couple of universities adapt to tests during quarantine, and follow reports on how the new methods would be used going forward.\nThe results where thus:\nMass offline testing is incredibly cost efficient (one examiner per ~300 students), but the tests results are a poor indicator of real world performance.\nOne to One testing is incredibly expensive, but can, when done right, test actual understanding and performance.\nBoth will be useful, of course. Mass testing is most useful when used in a way that students aren't incentivized to cheat, such as when framed as practice.", ">\n\nOne of the upsides of needing to prevent this kind of tech from cheating assignments is that teachers should focus on having students be able to do their homework at school. (As a former teacher, we were trying to do this already- no more than 15 min of homework per class). \nI dont think we need to do quite what you say. We just need to limit outside electronics and have in-person classrooms or computer labs with programs designed to be AI-proof. \nI have ALWAYS believed that cell phones/internet watches should be stored in school lockers (at most) and never allowed anywhere else on campus during the school day. If anyone needs to contact the students they contact the desk who relays their message/other need. Many schools already do this.", ">\n\n∆\nI agree with this. It would help.", ">\n\nThank you!", ">\n\nThat is utterly pointless.\nThere is no reason to limit the available tools.\nThis just reminds me of the entire \"you won't have a calculator wherever you go\" argument.\nSchool should instead put a focus on responsibly using available tools.", ">\n\nAnd if students choose to use them irresponsibly, what should schools do?\nAnd can you please define what constitutes responsible use? Because despite knowing about plagiarism, people still copy and paste from the internet. Perfect abstinence is easier than perfect moderation after all.", ">\n\nJust return to hand written essays and have more oral exams.", ">\n\n∆l\nActually of all comments having oral exams compliments my post and I agree with you. Enjoy the delta.", ">\n\nIn a Faraday cage.", ">\n\nIf children can just generate work with ChatGPT, it simply shows that children are not being taught anything valuable. (Once ChatGPT responses can be generated in almost unlimited amounts at very low cost, it necessarily means those responses are of low value)\nInstead shouldn't we be teaching children to provide more valuable outcomes that ChatGPT can't replicate?", ">\n\nBeing able to do on your own what ChatGPT does with access to an immense amount of data and processing power is valuable. The actual writing isn't valuable, obviously, but it would be silly to expect it to be. It's just a side effect of practice, you spend time making things of little or no value to build up the skills you'll need to make something that actually matters. That's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\nI think you'd be hard pressed to teach a class of children to outperform ChatGPT in writing without ever asking them to write something that could also be done via AI. What would that even look like?", ">\n\n\nThat's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\n\nIt is a problem. That is why I hated math class until 2nd year of university.", ">\n\nDid you start discovering novel math results in your second year of university, or was that just the point at which you first encountered problems you found interesting, despite the fact that someone else had already solved them before? Thinking back the class you didn't hate, do you think it should be removed if someone can construct an AI to give all the answers you gave?", ">\n\nThis is only a method for evaluating students, it doesn't do anything to educate them.\nChatgpt is potentially a great tool for education but trying to find complex ways around it for homework is pointless. When testing fact retention is required using school/university computers with no web browsing makes sense. For any other test or situation it's a tool that might be used.", ">\n\nI understand OPs concern. That said, I do not think you can create true quarantine for a multitude of reasons. \nThe biggest one is probably time. I worked through high school and university. Because I lived in the middle of nowhere it was about a 30 min drive to high school and then an hour to uni. Having to stay at these quarantine zones to complete assignments would have been hell on my schedule, car, and wallet. \nYou said it yourself, if someone is going to cheat, they will cheat. If I had to do the work in a quarantine zone, what exactly stops me from doing the actual work on my computer at home, printing it all out, and then just writing that into the computer at the quarantine zone? Unless you want to try having students write an entire essay in their hour long class? There has to be a point where they go home and then this falls apart.", ">\n\nThere are already lots of ways to cheat in homework and mostly our steps to deal with that amount to the honour system, and by university level, automated plagiarism detection (which can be quite easily avoided). The point you \"won't argue\" that people will cheat if given the opportunity is probably the actual crux of what's wrong with your suggestion and the part that needs a big [citation needed]. Concluding that the majority of people are fundamentally dishonest is a big assumption to handwave away. \nIf you want an education, cheating is stupid. Ultimately you might get a paper qualification out of it but you'll have actually learned nothing - you won't hold up long against someone who has done it properly when you actually have to apply the skills. Or if you do, then the assignments weren't that crucial to the learning in the first place.", ">\n\nMany of the things I learned in school were largely irrelevant. I couldn't use a calculator to do long division. After I passed those early elementary school years I never did long division again. I wouldn't even argue learning the long division algo is mandatory. It's nice to have learnt it I guess, but I spent way too many hours on it. I can see learning fundamentals of essay writing, etc, are great, but why can't we just evolve to learn more effective things in life? ChatGPT should be used as a tool, not viewed as a detriment.", ">\n\nIt'd suggest that the best way to educate them is to embrace ChatGBT and teach them to use it well. Your method is a bit like teaching kids to do math without calculators or accounting without excel or financial software. There is some value, but it runs out very quickly and you're at a social and competetive disadvantage for taking some archane principled approach to education that is more of a defense of \"how we used to do it\".\nI'm old enough to remember when using a word processor was sometime forbidden for reasons of fairness - that seems entirely disconnected now from doing good work and it's almost hard to envision the thought process of those who thought everything should be hand written for students. \nIsn't the kid who is amazing at utilizing tools like ChatGBT going to do much better in the world than the one who does not? Your idea of \"proper education\" would easily regress back to needing to do all subjects scrawled in dirt with sticks and grunted in non-standardized language.", ">\n\nOR, chatgpt will be a great boon to the entire education system:\nIncreased accessibility: ChatGPT and other AI-powered systems can provide education to individuals who otherwise would not have access to it, due to geographical, financial, or other barriers.\n\nPersonalized learning: ChatGPT can provide personalized education experiences based on each student's strengths, weaknesses, and learning style.\n\n24/7 availability: ChatGPT can operate 24/7, providing students with access to education at any time, anywhere, which can be especially beneficial for those with demanding schedules or for individuals in remote areas.\n\nScalability: ChatGPT can provide education to a large number of students simultaneously, which could help to address the shortage of teachers and resources in some areas.\n\nCost-effectiveness: ChatGPT can be a more cost-effective option for providing education compared to traditional methods, as it does not require physical classrooms or teachers.\n\nImproved student engagement: ChatGPT can provide interactive, engaging learning experiences that can hold students' attention and foster deeper learning.\n\n--Source: ChatGPT", ">\n\nThere a lots of places where texts and exams are “open book”. The questions have to be written differently, and the point is that you’re not testing someone’s ability to memorize, but rather their ability to understand. This is a more difficult test to write, so in theory AI could force education to improve since everyone would a virtual tutor with them at all times.", ">\n\nI'm a teacher and I've been thinking a lot about this the last couple months. Changes within the education system/curriculum/syllabus/retraining of teachers will take far too long to keep up with the ease of access to, and success of, chatgpt and AI in general. \nThe only solution moving forward both short and long term is to embrace it, there is no stopping it now anyway and if we don't all want to be out of a job in 5 years we need to - \n- demonstrate feasible/moral/ethical use of such tools\n- create more opportunities for collaborative learning/hands-on/problem solving tasks and ones that increase communication skills between peers. \nHow this applies to each individual, specific task will vary and must require a lot of creativity and trial and error, but I think relying too heavily on your department of education to handle this (or most 'boots on the ground' problems) will ultimately only degrade a students experience and ability for learning.", ">\n\nI'm with you on what you're trying to accomplish. I just don't know that it's the \"best\" way. \nFor instance, how is homework performed in school superior to trusting the kids to learn the material, which would then be tested by oral exam? And yes, I do believe that asking a student to verbally explain a topic is a really good way to gauge mastery.", ">\n\nThere is not a hope in hell that we'll go back to hand written stuff. That's not how technology works. As the music companies. There are better ways to show you know a subject, for sure, than the current out of-date ones. That's for sure. Have you ever taken an on-line exam?", ">\n\nI argue to let them use chatGPT as it will be their future. This is similar to my generations \"you'll never walk around with a calculator so learn math.\" The future children will grow into a society where work means utilizing AI tech to help them thrive. If chatGPT helps them write an essay, and it's good, it means they're using resources. I agree, however, that we should supplement this with actual reading and writing.", ">\n\nI would argue that most of time that ChatGPT and similar technologies is going to be an issue is in 8-12 grade and college.\nThis technology is not going away, and it's only going to improve. Personally I would treat it like calculators, audio books and spell check.\nTech kids how to use the technology properly. Sure it's somewhat handy to calculate numbers in your head, but having the ability to do math in your head does not give you much of an advantage in today's world and not being able to doesn't hurt you much. But it's still critical to know formulas and how to peace together algebraic statements and word problems. \nKnowing how to spell properly is less important than knowing proper word usage - most times you're writing something it can be spell-checked in real time. Sure it's \"terrible that today's kids...\" don't know how to spell... but it's not going to affect their career. \nEnter ChatGPT - same thing. Should I spend the time to write a white paper on the changing advertising landscape to alert my boss about the a potential seismic shift in advertising revenue, or should I ask ChatGPT to write it? As a user I have to understand its limits and potential copywrite issues, but even more importantly how to verify that what it writes is correct and targeting the right audience. Is data from before 2020 going to be recent and accurate enough for my thesis? How do I supplement the discussion with real-world data? \nThis is our new reality. We should be learning how to use the tools properly, not trying to figure out to lock it down (which frankly makes as much sense as locking down the use of calculators or spell check).", ">\n\nI think there are already apps in place that are able to detect AI generated text (Read this article).\nAlso, I think a better method would be to simply have a database of ChatGPT (could be encrypted) generated text and make it available to already existing software that is use to detect plagiarism (this is just an exemple amongst many)", ">\n\nFrankly I don’t think high schoolers and below should be given homework or tests at all. One learns magnitudes better through exploration as opposed to mindless repetition. Engage with these kids intellectually, make them free thinking Athenians, not bags of knowledge of which they have no idea how to use.\nDoes it not surprise anyone that we train people for over a decade in intellect yet hardly have any intellectuals?", ">\n\nI would argue that society would be better off spending resources on teaching children how to use this tool effectively. Knowing how to get the right answer is what matters in this world.", ">\n\nThen answer this: Well why learn math at all? Seriously.\nWhy learn he concept of subtraction let alone division? I could and society has argued that with the advent of digital calculators. \nYet we learn it. \nLater we use calculators to take the mundane and already known processes to the next level. We abstract away the mundane. \nAs a EE having worked and am working on products you may be using right now to read this, when I develop new silicon and chips I don’t break out Karnaugh maps and lay down circuit using a T square and stencils of gates. But I sure the hell know what I’m doing and expect the tools to do for me. \nTeaching fundamentals of reading, writing, arithmetic, essays, research are just that fundamental.", ">\n\nI’d argue that the vast majority don’t need anything beyond basic math anyways. \nGo ask the average adult if they know the quadratic equation and what it means and you’d probably be disappointed.", ">\n\nChatGPT is here to stay, you'd better advocate for teaching people how to make the most of it and use it wisely instead of pretending it doesn't exist.\nOne of my favourite teachers always told students to use the best tools there are.", ">\n\nI think it depends completely on the topic. In my field of study, it’s fairly easy to come up with term paper assignments that the bot would be useless for. \nLooking back at the paper I wrote last year, I don’t see how any current bot could have helped, as it isn’t able to read or summarize specific sources (yet?).\nAn example of the type of assignments we get is “Discuss the role of state capacity in x and x conflict in light of (specific research paper)‘s dimensions of state capacity - do your findings confirm the findings of (authors), why or why not?\nThis way of combining literature made it difficult even for me to be on top of it, as there were no sources that had attempted this exact combination - it has to be original. \nAlso, I find it’s the best way to learn, because you have to rely on your own judgement and there are no shortcuts, even asking the professor was unhelpful as he wasn’t too familiar with the details.", ">\n\nThis is not the best way.", ">\n\n\nThese homework rooms would have Internet connected computers for use but access to ChatGPT would be filtered and blocked.\n\nThis wouldn't be feasible, there's far too many roundabout ways to still access ChatGPT. Security measures like domain filtering are just unproductive games of whack-a-mole. \nEdit: removed all the other stuff I wrote, as those points have already been mentioned in previous top-level comments.", ">\n\nHomework shouldn’t be the go-to method of “education” to begin with. Imo Universities should focus on the integral part of education: the lectures. Tools like chatgpt can help student who are actually interested in a subject to learn more easily about it, but whether students actually learn anything or not from a class won’t change regardless of if work is authentic or copied from an AI\nSource: I’m a college student and have had experience in both supervised environments where we had to do work without the use of computers/phones and solely-online environments where many students cheated", ">\n\nWhile this could work, it is not necessarily the best way in terms of accessibility and of learning in general. \nFirst, students with ADHD and certain other conditions may not necessarily be the able to be productive at all times, or at the specific time they have to work on those computers, especially if those computers are not in an environment ideal to that specific person. It would also not be very feasible to give students enough time on these computers to complete the bigger assignments and essays. \nSecond, while ChatGPT is quite advanced, it simply works by looking at language patterns and often gets factual details incorrect. For example, with bigger coding problems, it tries to import modules that do not exist or call on functions that it has not defined. In literature, it cannot analyze texts on much more than a surface level. I will admit it can use secondary sources for textual analysis, however, it is unable to come up with a clear thesis on its own. \nAdditionally, take-home tests can be just as easily cheated on using a normal Google search, and usually test thinking skills rather than understanding and knowledge. \nFinally, essay-writing and other types of assignments are generally not ideal for learning as they are only one type of skill, and university professors are recognizing this. Not only do they not work for all learning styles, but they are only used so commonly because of tradition. University professors are structuring assignments around ways that are innovative enough that ChatGPT is unable to work on them. Along with requiring specific readings which the AI might not have access to, and citing of all sources (which has always been a requirement that the AI might trip up on), they are also going away from the traditional essay format into others. For example, I am studying literature, a relatively essay-heavy field, and in my past few courses I have been asked to analyze comics (which the AI cannot read), edit other people’s essays and articles (from past courses), create a mock syllabus or lesson plan with justifications for each reading, and create annotated bibliographies as a stepping stone to an essay. All of these not only require different skills and encourage different types of learning and research but are quite difficult for an AI to do. \nAll in all, while your suggestion is great, the very nature of the AI and the fact that it exists at all is perhaps a sign that the best course of action is to rework the way we think about evaluation. After all, if an evaluation is such that an AI can complete it without the ability to actually think (it works by using observed language patterns), then perhaps the evaluation is not ideal.", ">\n\nI bet teachers and people thought the same thing about calculators when they came out or 1990s internet. AI bots like chat GPT are just a tool.", ">\n\nAll this effectively does is train kids to accomplish goals of a type that do not exist in the real world in a situation they will never realistically encounter. A better goal is adjusting testing criteria to account for this.\nThere might be very specific sets of knowledge for which rote memorization is appropriate, and for those, the air gapped testing may be appropriate. But I believe those are the exception rather than the rule. By and large, teaching kids to effectively utilize the tools that will be available to them is what we should be doing.", ">\n\nImagine learning where the only books are hand written.\nThe printing press took out a huge amount of repetitive labor in the learning process.\nAI/ChatGPT stands a good chance of removing a huge amount knowledge labor which stands between an idea and the end product. Learning to use the AI to best effect the Idea->End Product Chain is more important than worrying about memorizing formulae we will likely never need to remember. \nThe effort to restrict ChatGPT is just education system worrying about their Cheese Being Moved.", ">\n\nThis just doesn't make any sense to me. You're arguing that we shouldn't allow students to use tools they would have at their disposal in a real working environment, and for what? Why wouldn't you want students to use every tool at their disposal? How exactly is handicapping them helping them to understand the coursework?\nA much better approach would be to fundamentally alter how we teach to better prepare them for the workforce. Encouraging collaboration and creative problem solving skills is much more practical and effective.", ">\n\nChatGPT may pass the Bar, but I highly doubt it will replace lawyers or other professionals. \nThe whole point of credentialing is to drive accountability. Anyone can study the law and cite precedent without a law degree. Actually representing a client in a court of law requires oversight and knowledge. ChatGPT isn't perfect - it will make mistakes from time to time. So who is responsible when it makes a mistake? When is a client (who is not familiar with the law) supposed to know that a mistake has been made on their behalf? For this reason, until ChatGPT is literally perfect you're always going to need a credentialed professional to review the output.\nFor the record, I think ChatGPT is wonderful. But it's a tool that people will use, not a full-fledged replacement for professionals. My employer (a Fortune 500 company) has already rejected its use for internal projects. IT has the website blocked.", ">\n\nThe kids that are educated without its use will fall behind in business when faced with kids that are using it to its fullest extent.\nYou've successfully made an argument for people to succeed in a test that is worthless in the real world. Its parameters don't match.", ">\n\nThe best way to educate children is to teach them skills and strategies that will actually serve them in the workplace of the future. \nChatGPT already has reached the point of replacing humans (See Buzzfeed news). If ChatGPT can take the test or do the homework then what value is that education going to be to these students? Especially older students will quickly see rote memorization as a waste of time and so yes they probably will cheat if they have the opportunity. Trying to force these things to be “learned” and prove that knowledge by brute force banning things is going to be a costly uphill battle.", ">\n\nWhat if we modify how essays are written by students, by asking them to include citations (which is something ChatGPT can’t do)?\nWe can’t stop new tools from making old methods obsolete. But we can focus on enhancing critical thinking of students in a stepwise manner. When a new tool is created, think about how you can adapt rather than resist it.", ">\n\nWhy not just train an ai to spot ai written papers?", ">\n\nWhat about gradually putting more emphasis on oral assignments?", ">\n\nEverything you said makes perfect sense...IF the goal was to teach children simply how to write the perfect standard essay. But that is a very limited way of viewing education and what its real goal is. The real goal of education is to teach children how to think. To come up with the right questions, not just the right answers. In a world where a \"good enough\" essay on literally anything can be conjured as if by magic by a machine, what's the actual value of that exercise now? For a very long time teachers have used the essay as a way to evaluate how a person thinks. Now that a machine can write it for you, we need new ways to evaluate how students think. That's the real task we are facing. Fuck the essay, just like we ditched the slide rule for calculators and later computers, etc. Tools change but the real game remains the same: Think for yourself!", ">\n\nI'd say the best way would be to accept the reality of changing technology and reevaluating the approach we have towards education as a whole.\nGranted, I'd say that's only one half of the picture: reassessing how we conceive if jobs and labour in the face of increasing automation goes along with that, and I think neither really works without the other.\nBottom line is that human labour is more and more obsolete as time goes on, so human jobs will be less and less in demand (I'd argue moving away from a capitalistic system is the right call, but even if you don't, automation is still an incentive).\nSince a large part of the incentive of our current education system is \"prepare you for a job\" I think the whole thing is going to fall short in light of these kinds of systems developing.\nTheres lots of people now who pursue knowledge as a project of passion, rather than a means to an end, and I think moving to a system that supports and encourages that kind of ambition is the way to go.", ">\n\nI disagree. We should learn to use the tools we have efficiently. Otherwise you are not learning for your career but for some professors ego", ">\n\nThat’s not “education in the era of ChatGPT.” That’s education in the era before ChatGPT while we figure out what the world with ChatGPT will look like so we have some idea of what to do with it.\nThat’s also not “educating,” that’s just “assessment.” Assessment is simply a measuring system for education. As long as you think of the acquisition of knowledge and skill as requiring knowledge regurgitation and skill performance in isolation and divorced from context/individualized, then you’re going to end up at necessitating a kind of geofenced, Luddite assessment model. The training itself predicates the assessment method. How we assess is defined by how we teach, and vice versa.\nThe best assessment method to gauge understanding is, and always has been, conversation.\nAll we need to do is pair assessment with regular conversation between qualified teacher and student to determine if personal comprehension is present. Not an interview, not an interrogation — conversation. Problem solving performance contexts are also great revealer of internalized knowledge and skill.\nChatGPT is a relative nonissue if your approach to assessment is at all human.\nIt’s only a problem when you’re trying to mechanize and dehumanized education. “Rigorous” does not mean “mechanical.” We are going to have to trust the professional, knowledge- and skill-assessing judgements of humans who already know and can do.\nEducation reverts to having more emphasis on apprenticeship and mentorship models, where the relationship itself is part of the learning process. \n(The “accountability!” cranks are gonna love that…)", ">\n\nI have a strong suspicion that discussions like this, while very interesting, will be obsolete long before any changes can actually be implemented in schools. In fact, I'm pretty sure schools will be gone entirely in the near future.\nAs of right now, you can be taught almost any subject by an exceptionally well-spoken, fast and infinitely patient teacher called GPT to a university level, if not higher. Try it right now - go ask GPT to explain the political situation that allowed Alexander the Great to conquer Persia, or ask it to explain the raytracing algorithm. If there's a part you don't understand, ask it to clarify. You'll be amazed how accessible it makes advanced topics.\nNow, how long before we have VR software with a realistic-looking AI teacher, with an AI-generated voice, who can do the same thing, but respond to students' voices and use body language and visual demonstrations? Five years?\nHow long after that before this tech is cheap, and of such high quality that sending your kids to school will be a worse education?\nNow in, say, 20 years, we could have an AI system that takes a DNA sample, analyses a students genotype to understand what subjects they will be naturally good at, what education approaches will be most successful, and continuously improves its model of the student's behavior by observing them. It crafts a decades-long education journey tailored to the individual, and accompanies them the entire way.\nTeachers, as far as they've existed so far, don't have a chance.", ">\n\nAre you trying to test someone or teach them?\nIf the latter, why do you care about cheating? This reminds me of the ol' teachers who used to restrict calculators because \"you won't always have a calculator with you.\"", ">\n\nYou forget that for 99% of homework students could just copy each other's work. Having the answers out in the world accessible is not a new problem. You just make homework a small part of the grades and you make sure students understand it's important to actually do it or they won't do well on the tests.", ">\n\nThere are so many people that can’t do the basic math examples you mentioned somewhere and they went to school at a time when there were no calculators.\nOn the other hand I was allowed to use calculators in school pretty much the moment I left elementary school and I am really quite good at math even without assistance.\nTool usage is one of humanities key features and trying to work against it instead of finding ways to incorporate new technology into school and life seems backwards.", ">\n\nIronically the teacher will have to use an AI to decipher the \"hand written\" assignments.", ">\n\nYou can't force people to learn.", ">\n\nWhat about teaching how to think rather than how to memorize? Just a thought 💭", ">\n\nThey need to get rid of homework, and have students do their work while they're at school. It's awful, they just pile it on, even if a class only has a little homework that day, there's like 6 or 7 classes so it's a nightmare for students. Seems like the only way to prevent cheating is have them do work in class, so I hope for the students sake, they do that.", ">\n\nI’ll throw my idea into the ring, though we’re still a few years off from this technology:\nWe should have students interact with AI tutors that can prompt them questions and point out details. Then they can collaborate on assignments, and the AI tutor can give feedback and suggest snippets. The AI can evaluate their work and their engagement with the material.", ">\n\nOne of Transformers main applications is in search. Ie you get a set of embeddings you can compare the pairwise distances between embedding and get a list of scores that tell you which embeddings are most similar to the input. \nEssentially tools like google are made to reduce the search space for a given query collect likely links and then rerank the most likely results. \nChatgpt basically does this in a more direct way of searching through a space of potential responses. Basically trained on a task to predict next token given the previous tokens or fill in a mask\nTransformers permeate everything students use from the recommendation algorithms on TikTok Facebook, YouTube to search systems in google. \nIn my opinion students should absolutely not be taught to fear these tools tho I do agree they be tested in constrained environments to challenge them. Current systems should not be used to learn unless you have a clear understanding and are willing to check every word and check your reasoning. Future systems will be much better though so this problem isn’t going anywhere. \nIf anything there should be a push to make these ideas more interpretable to a younger audience and give them the tools to navigate an increasingly complex market of ideas. They should be aware of the limitations and how when they use a piece of software their actions and the actions of those around them are influencing what they see next. \nIt should be used and taught with rigor. \nIt’s programming 2.0", ">\n\nDude no; \nChatGPT is the computer. \nDo you want to be the education system that banned the computer and then wondered why all the other education systems output modern tech workers, while your education system kept outputting chimney sweeps and car factory workers?", ">\n\nHW only exists to make students practice, and generally is worth less than 20% of the grade in a class. If a student chooses to use chat GPT to bypass it then that’s the student’s loss.\nUltimately exams are what schools use to evaluate a students knowledge and I don’t think that’s going to change anytime soon", ">\n\nThere are already programs that check if something was written by an AI or not. Also no student I know actually uses chatGPT for major assignments because chatGPT doesn’t know every text to ever be published so it doesn’t understand the context, and most of the time will just bullshit an answer that’s incorrect.\nEveryone I know that uses chatGPT for school do so for either for assignments so small and simple that it doesn’t make sense to quarantine, or they use it as a more advanced google that can answer questions more accurately than a search engine could, essentially just saving time.\n(most) students are using chatGPT largely as a productivity and time management tool rather than to cheat.", ">\n\nThis is like saying “in the age of calculators, the only way to ensure kids learn maths is to ban calculators in school”. If looked at correctly, chatgpt is an effect multiplier, learning just has to be rejigged to have kids learn to do things that they can’t simply ask chatgpt to do for them.", ">\n\nLess course work and more exams is the future in a world with chatGPT.", ">\n\nChatGPT will be a big no issue soon. I work in a research field and this was something we worried about last year. As of now there are multiple tools and even more being developed that catch the use of ChatGPT. There has been research published that list ChatGPT as a co-author, but for most research, and use by students, it will simply be forbidden and will easily be caught as well. The program does well but it has a particular style that can be caught. Again it will be a non-issue soon.", ">\n\nThis is like forbidding people to use a calculator because it can give you the result instant. A better way is to teach them how to use the calculator, because its here now and won't go away. Same with GPT. Children can learn way better/faster with ChatGPD if used correctly. Imaging having a private teacher for free which helps you learning every time of the day.", ">\n\nLet me ask you this. If ChatGPT could complete a students whole assignment, what would that student have learned from doing that assignment on their own that won’t simply be replaced with ChatGPT by a employer in the future?\nEven if ChatGPT doesn’t replace workers for a decade, why teach students skills that will inevitably be replaced and leave said students jobless in a decade?\nChatGPT won’t only be used in the workforce either. Linus Tech Tips has a video showing how ChatGPT can help people learn new skills and do troubleshooting on their own. If I remember correctly, he manages to completely build a pc by only strictly following what ChatGPT tells him to. It even managed to suggest the best parts for that computers specific use case. It was nowhere near perfect, but in the future it will get there.\nSince ChatGPT is such a useful tool in the workforce and at home, I think it’s crucial we teach students how to use it instead of banning them from it. Maybe students should be given a problem and tasked to use ChatGPT to find the solution or have students attempt to learn a new topic with ChatGPT. I’m not a teacher, I just thought of those examples of the top of my head. I’m sure qualified teachers could think of better assignments than me.\nI could see ChatGPT helping a mechanic diagnose an issue so the mechanic could spend more time fixing the problem rather than diagnosing and I can think of a few examples in other jobs as well where ChatGPT will help a worker be more efficient and save more time.\nI think, if anything, we’re setting students up for failure by not teaching them about these tools that will take over the workforce and help in everyday life.", ">\n\nYou’ll still have to pass a test. Relax.", ">\n\nIt “fairs” extremely well? Maybe some additional time spent observing ChatGPT could actually benefit some", ">\n\nThere’s just no way you can use ChatGPT to do all of your work for you and be successful at any moderately high level of academic pursuit. Not without learning the material yourself, and if you’ve done that, I don’t think it matters so much whether you used chatGPT and for what along the way.\nFrankly if you start our using chatGPT early in school, you won’t even be able to ask the right questions in the right way and include the necessary refinements to do more complex and demanding assignments down the road. \nAlso, tests are still a thing aren’t they? ChatGPT doesn’t help you perform in person in a monitored environment - not in a way that would allow you to skip learning the material. I don’t really get this aspect of your cmv. As long as tests don’t allow access to ChatGPT, anyone who didn’t learn the material is going to be exposed..", ">\n\nThere are already programs that detect ChatGPT writing.", ">\n\nThe children who want to cheat will always find a way to do so. It doesn’t matter how much you do to restrict it, it’ll just make them find new means of doing so. \nSource: I did GCSE’s in the UK, AP in the US. Trust, kids will cheat even in sterile environments. Especially if it’s a huge room and there are few moderators. A lot of us are scared of repercussions but those who aren’t won’t let anything stand in there way—region and proctoring be damned.", ">\n\nI require them to complete an outline first. Outline must be submitted to me before I take the essay. Google doc lets you see that they write it and when each sentence was written. It’s helped.", ">\n\nCHATGPT is a tool, and in some applications (not all), it can help students do their homework. Consider the calculator. Do students not need to learn formulas and critical thinking just because they can punch numbers into calculators?\nNo, math is still a skill that is valuable if for no other reason then because it trains your brain to solve problems.\nOne of the things that surprises me is that ChatGPT can use words and explain things to students even when a teacher is not available or when there isn’t one. we should consider this an educational opportunity rather than a disadvantage.\nThere are so many amazing things we humans can do when we simply have tools to help us. ChatGPT is no different.", ">\n\nYou can’t force people to live in the past. Chat GPT is here to stay. Education now needs to focus on teaching people how to use AI, and how to develop a skill that can’t be replaced by AI.", ">\n\nHow about getting students engaged in what they’re learning and excited to learn. Find what they’re good at and double down on it. Don’t make school a fucking quarantine bubble. Socialize, allow them to teach and learn from each other. Replace the potential for cheating with collaboration assignments in person. “Children will cheat if given the opportunity” is such horse shit. If somebody doesn’t know or wasn’t taught something well then yea they’re gonna look to get it right so they can obtain approval. How about teaching them so they won’t cheat??", ">\n\nThats not it. I don’t have an answer for you, but thats not it.", ">\n\nHow about just have the kids do a presentation on \"their\" report with Q&A at the end. They'll have no choice but to know the info.... which is the point.", ">\n\nWell, making an AI that detects if something was made by an AI shouldnt be hard", ">\n\nI wonder if anyone has tried training a machine to look at assignments and give a confidence interval of the assignment being either human or machine in origin.", ">\n\nYeah we call that stuff examns...", ">\n\nThe problem with your suggested approach is that it just reinforces the current failures of the education system. It doesn't actually teach us the skills that you will be able to use in the field. \n\nYou can look up formulas for physics and you can double check online for any coding questions. Chat gpt is a tool and I think forbidding students from using it will just be a disservice to them and everyone in the future. It's not going to go away any time soon so how about instead of teaching children to cheat more effectively, we teach them how to use chat gpt to its full potential? It can speed up so many tasks to such a degree that students will be able to recieve more advanced education in the time that was saved by using chat gpt", ">\n\nI mean, there are plenty of good reasons already said, but wouldn't it just be easy to cheat. You get home, ask Chat.gpt for a result, print it out. Bring it with you to the school quarantine, copy it into the computer. (Unless you would like a full strip search of the students upon entering, which is wrong in so many ways)", ">\n\nI could use this in my program all I wanted and pass courses with perfect scores, and at the end of my degree I’d have a licensure exam that I’d fail cause I didn’t learn anything." ]
> Instead of asking students to write ...ask them to spot the mistakes and correct the essays. That requires way more knowledge and mastership.	[ "/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^\| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.", ">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?", ">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.", ">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?", ">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.", ">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?", ">\n\nYou mean a grade?", ">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication", ">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.", ">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)", ">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.", ">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.", ">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.", ">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.", ">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?", ">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.", ">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.", ">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.", ">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.", ">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.", ">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.", ">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.", ">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.", ">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.", ">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.", ">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.", ">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.", ">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.", ">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use", ">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.", ">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.", ">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.", ">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.", ">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.", ">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.", ">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.", ">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).", ">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.", ">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.", ">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.", ">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.", ">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.", ">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.", ">\n\n\nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \n\nWhy? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it. \n\nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \n\nWhy? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? \nLet's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project. \n\nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.\n\nTotally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator.", ">\n\nFor the most part, knowledge workers perform a given amount of work in a given amount of hours, and the number of them hired by a company is TotalHoursNeeded/NumHoursPerEmployee. E.g. if you have 100 manyears of work to get done in a typical year, you employ 100 people.\nChat GPT isn't going to \"replace\" people wholesale, because as you say someone still needs to supervise it. But it looks to be on track to increase the productivity of programmers (can write a first draft of code and finds many of the bugs instantly). \nSame for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones. \nSo now the TotalNeeded is decreased by some percentage, let's say 10% to start. Now you only need 90 human programmers to do that same work. With 25% efficiency gain, you need 75. With 50%, 50. Etc. \nOr take translation jobs. Today, an editor spends roughly 3 minutes per word editing machine translated text, and 1 minute per word editing human-translated text. As long as editors are more expensive per hour than first translation people, it still makes sense much of the time to hire translators, because the software isn't free. \nBut the graph of machine translation \"efficiency\" is trending towards taking the same amount of time to edit as a human translator. As soon as that's hit, there's literally no reason to hire human translators, only editors. \nAnd if the editing time goes down to 30 seconds/word because of further AI assistance to the editor, you only need half as many of those.", ">\n\nThere is currently two better solutions being worked on - one of which is already being used to some degree. \nThe first is ChatGPT developers themselves making moves to make AI written works to be identified by \"watermark\" or similar. I don't thi k this one has taken effect at all yet. \nAnother is by a separate dev team that allows teachers to use software to determine the amount of an essay, for example, that is written by AI what the likelihood of any one sentence or paragraph to have been written by AI. This allows the teachers to use discretion when determining if the student used the AI in a way that they find acceptable or not. This way instead kf running from the scary AI educators can actually utilize tyhe AI with students to help them develop their writing and other communications.", ">\n\nWhat about kids with transportation issues? When I was in school I knew kids that drove almost an hour each way to get there. I certainly couldn’t have asked my parents to drop everything to take me all the way to school so I could do my homework if I forgot. Bus schedules? Do you think schools want to waste more money by burning more gas for extra routes? I understand where you’re coming from, but for a fair amount of children—especially in poorer, more rural areas—that getting to school and back is such a delicate balancing act that such a thing would just punish them.", ">\n\nI've seen a few key things from academics testing out ChatGPT (I have not signed up myself):\n\nIt tends to produce confident, convincing nonsense. It doesn't actually understand what it's writing about, and I hear it shows.\nIt makes up citations. Real authors in the field, real journals... but made-up titles. Things like that, since, again, it doesn't actually understand citations.\n\nThis suggests that, for assignments requiring the demonstration of genuine, in-depth understanding, and not merely the ability to summarize facts, ChatGPT will fail.\nA similar example that you bring up in the comments is programming cheat sheets into calculators - but for well-designed engineering exams (including the licensure exams, at least in the US), cheat sheets are fine and often either allowed or provided. A well-designed exam tests the ability to apply principles, not knowledge of equations, so a cheat sheet is harmless, or even allows the exam to work better (since people aren't distracted with memorizing equations).", ">\n\nThere are three criticisms that I have of this approach. \n\n\nShould we not teach to the environment that we live in? Yes, education often imposes arbitrary constraints like time tests but for research and reports why not let people use and work around all resources? If you can work around chat gpt to work efficiently, then do it. You learn what it can and can’t do and how to use it effectively as a tool. \n\n\nCan chatGPT on it’s own actually write a good essay? From what I have seen it can pull together a few sources. It can generally write fluff based on other things that it has seen. But it struggles to write analysis. It can’t interrogate a source or make value judgements. It could be useful for doing some filler or providing ideas but if to do an actual report, I think it would be insufficient. \n\n\nAn assignment that can be done using chatgpt is probably boring. Here I am writing an essay for no reason other than I find it interesting to discuss this topic. Perhaps, we arent giving students interesting enough assignments or we are overloading them to the point that they don’t have the time to engage? If chatGPT turns out to be an issue maybe it’s more of an indictment of the structures and norms of education.", ">\n\n\n\nhomework in the form of essays, take home tests, coding assignments, would be completed on school grounds. \n\n\nCongratulations, you've invented the \"cram school\".\nI'd recommend reading through your post again and actually thinking about the things you've said. Because essentially, you're merely advocating for the wholesale elimination of homework and for education outside of that to remain totally unchanged. It's almost literally, \"Make the school day 30% longer\".\nMy solution to the \"problem\" of students potentially using ChatGPT to cheat on homework: I don't think you need a hilariously convoluted system of homework \"boiler rooms\" redolent of national security apparatus, that requires schools to adopt ruinously expensive and disruptive technological and administrative changes.\nIt would be sufficient if we institute a system whereby teachers are encouraged to, let's say... \"test\" their students, whether by regular written exams or by talking to them in what I'll call \"classes\", to ensure they understand the material they've been assigned to learn.\nThis method ensures that students cannot use AI homework bots to coast through classes (since they'll literally be found out the very next class), and has the added benefit of not adding three hours to every teacher's day.", ">\n\nWhat about pen and ink?", ">\n\narguably I can just copy a ChatGPT output by hand. So I think that is a first level measure, but not a complete solution.", ">\n\nIt's a better solution than prison just because the curriculum can't keep up with technology.\nWhen calculators arrived on everyone's phone and everyone's pocket did you advocate for the same solution? Unlikely, so why only now with this system?", ">\n\nWell I did and I was. When I was studying engineering in the 80s we routinely could not arrive at exams with a calculator. Even then calculators were programmable enough to allow students to write cheat sheets in calculator memory.\nIt forced us to memorize equations, principals of engineering, and independent thinking. I’m a better engineer because I did.", ">\n\nSo you're what, almost 60? And you think what's best for children is to be like you? Don't you think you may be a bit out of touch?\nAlso, your view was about K12 students, not engineering students.", ">\n\nNo. As I replied, leaning on tools as a crutch all your life will limit your ability and function as a human. For example, you could argue that basic math isn’t necessary. As matter of fact that was an argument years ago with the advent of calculators.\nHowever, humans should be able to exist and functions without a digital crutch. You should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator. You should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google. There are basic elements of duration necessary since we are all still wet grey matter.", ">\n\n\nYou should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator\n\nBut why?\n\nYou should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google\n\nAgain, why?\nWhere do you get your \"should\" from?\nI have basically all human knowledge in my hand, every equation or conversion I'll ever need day to day, even every language I'll likely ever encounter. Why shouldn't I leave my brain free to think about what it wants and to use my incredible resource as and when it's needed?\nDo you envision some Saw-like situation where you're locked to a wall and need to solve maths equations at pain of death?", ">\n\nThe less you use your brain the less likely your body is to maintain it. Our body functions through a use or lose it principle. Just look people who lose movement function/muscle just by being bedridden for a long time. Our brain is not different.\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.", ">\n\nIs wasting resources on process you can deletage outside not using your brain? You free up that space to put to what you decide is important.\n\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.\n\nThe weakest man with a gun can take out the strongest bodybuilder.", ">\n\nAnd if you decide Tik tok and Netflix are important? How do you think that will affect the cognitive ability of kids?\nI didn't mention strength nor physical strength. And even then the strongest man with a gun will probably take out the weakest man with a gun.(An actual fair comparison)", ">\n\nCouldn't chatgpt (or somesuch AI) be asked \"Hey - did you write this?\" and nip this sort of thing in the bud?", ">\n\nNo, Chat GPT doesn't remember everything it's said, the potential things it could say are huge and even if someone wrote something that Chat GPT might say, it could be a coincidence.", ">\n\nWell, strike that idea then.\nStill though - there must be some way to use AI to deal with this. \"set a thief to catch a thief\" and all that.", ">\n\nChat GPT (and most generative AIs) use GANs to generate content. \nIn laymen's terms (and extremely simplified as it's above my level of understanding) a GAN is 2 AI systems competing against each other, a creator AI that creates content and a checker AI that decides if the content was genuine or made by the other AI. \nSo any automated way to tell if it's AI generated can be built into the checker AI in future versions and the creator AI will learn to avoid whichever features the checker AI is spotting.", ">\n\nChatGPT is just another mechanism for reducing the need for labor, and it's not going away. \nChildren will need to be educated in both how to make effective use of it (for as long as it's not sufficient to completely eliminate mental labor), and also in the ethics of not using it. Always forcing them to write in airgapped places isn't going to do that, it just makes them resent it. \nAlso: essay writing on a scale needed to really learn long-form writing is not very amenable to doing in an airgapped classroom, because honestly we're not using dead-tree sources of information anymore already, so doing their research pretty much has to include doing it on line. \nBut really: laborious manual long-form essay writing is going to go the way of penmanship and looking things up in a library as an unneeded skill very quickly. We need children to adjust to that reality of the modern world rather than pretending it will go away. \nPeople are still needed (for now) to do the important part of writing essays without doing the laborious bit that ChatGPT automates anyway: deciding what to write, and editing it into a convincing and well-written form. \nForcing kids to spend a lot of time learning how to write the basic bulk part of essays is a lot like teaching them how to make buggy-whips in shop class: a pointless exercise. \nIt would be better to give them all prewritten ChatGPT essays and have them learn the limitations and capabilities.", ">\n\nIs ChatGPT really that much more effective than just grabbing things off Wikipedia? I was asking it things about elections and it was just Wikipedia from two years ago", ">\n\nThe answer is NEVER to limit technology. It’s to teach the new generation how to use that technology to achieve the same goal.\nIt’s pointless to ban computers and teach the memorization of dates in history class. It’s much more productive to teach online research skills so that if an individual needs to know the date of a particular moment in history, they can reliably Google it.\nChatGPT is the same. It renders writing essays as pointless, and it necessitates the teachers to adapt to new teaching styles, such as teaching the skills on how best to manipulate ChatGPT to return the information you need.", ">\n\nI was banned from using programming calculators when I studied engineering in the 80s during exams. It forced the students to all be on the same level playing field and forced us to actually know the equations, their applications, and the processes of whatever engineering course I was taking.\nIt made us better engineers.", ">\n\nHow does handicapping you make you a better engineer? If I put you and an engineer trained with technology in the same room together, who do you think would accomplish the task faster?", ">\n\nThe handicapped engineer, easily. The point of forcing students to actually learn the material is so that they understand how to reason about the underlying processes when they need to troubleshoot something going wrong, and understand the tradeoffs between approaches and how to select the best one for the task. \nOnce you understand things deeply you don't actually need training in doing things quickly because it's immediately intuitive how to apply a technological process to save time. The guy that leaned heavily on technology is basically fucked if he has to use a technique or software that he didn't specifically train on since he doesn't have a good foundation to abstract from. It would be more appropriate to call this person a technician.", ">\n\nThe purpose of calculators is to do the menial part of the work, not to solve whole processes. The engineer that learned with calculators likely knows how to select the right process to solve a problem, but uses the calculator to do the math faster and with fewer errors.", ">\n\nAt the college level, we’re not talking about tools to add and multiply. We’re talking about tools like Wolfram Alpha that do entire symbolic manipulations for you. If I took a calculus class and on all the assignments used Wolfram Alpha to find derivatives, do you think I would have learned anything?\nThat is what ChatGPT is doing for essays", ">\n\nThere are things called pencil and paper.", ">\n\nAs I said, this is the first line defense. However as I already commented to another user. I can simply hand copy ChatGPT output. Essentially not doing my own independent research, writing, coding, and studying.", ">\n\nWhy don't you consider that research? \nThe first source was the best. It's incredibly efficient research IMO.", ">\n\nThe idea of tool removal has always been flawed. From calculators to chat GPT and beyond. If your test is so flimsy that a simple tool invalidates it then the test is poorly built. Test shouldn't be simple busywork tasks, they should require thinking, problem solving, complex thought. If it's just a game of memorization that can be cheated by answers on a paper, you've built a bad test.\nover memorization (which is what our current school systems teach) is not only unhelpful, but also harmful. We live in an era of wikipedia being a reliable source, of vast access to tools both online and phsycial. We should be teaching kids they should do the work but with the help of those tools, not despite them.\nThe main issue with your argument is that based on what you've said, i can assume you think the current school system is a good one but so many studies have shown that at least here in the US, the school systems are some of the worst in the world. It's this memorize, ignore tools, singular focus mentality that plays such a big role.\nIf we were more creative with education, incorporating tool utilization into the learning process, we'd likely have a major improvement to our educational successes. I could go on about how the education system prefers certain kinds of students over others, and how many students are left behind simply because they don't learn like other kids and are therefore punished, but I won't. All I'll say is that more restrictions on how and what kids learn isn't going to help them learn more or better.\nand in 15 years when chat GPT is a part of daily life in every single company on the planet in some way or another (which I'm beyond certain it will be), kids who were taught how to properly utilize it will have just such a huge advantage in the workforce over those who weren't", ">\n\nRather than attempt to find ways to prevent new technology from interfering with existing pedagogy, shouldn't we review and revise pedagogy as new technology develops? \nIf a chat AI program can write these things, what is the point of having humans repeatedly do the same work? We don't expect people to use an abacus when doing math, or limit their research to what's in the library card catalogue, or require printed paper publications as essay resources; we adapted to the calculator, and to the internet and search engines. So too should we adapt to things like ChatGPT, not by trying to pretend it doesn't exist, but by finding ways to incorporate it into a more holistic approach to learning.\nRather than chain kids to an airgapped room on school grounds outside of school hours to do homework that's of dubious educational value in the first place, we should take this as an opportunity to refocus schooling on in-class engagement and direct instruction. ChatGPT and programs like it are showing us yet another thing we as humans can outsource to our technology, so why struggle to do things in a more difficult and inefficient way?", ">\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\nIn addition, AI is only as good as the data it is fed. You must still be able to do the work on your own to analyze when the AI is giving valid outputs (garbage in, garbage out). This is especially true, when AI runs the risks of being owned or operated by those with a specific agenda. Can you imagine the trouble that would result if people relied on AI to determine who to vote for, but someone was able to pay the operators to have the AI promote them?\nRelying on AI to do our work for us is a distillation of an appeal to authority fallacy on a large scale (if the AI says it, it must be true).", ">\n\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\n\nThis is something I worry about A LOT when it comes to AI. Our collective understanding of the subjects that we usually classify as \"the humanities\" is constantly evolving as we learn more, and especially as a more diverse set of people are allowed to study, research and put forth opinions and arguments.\nImagine if students were outsourcing all their history, psychology, sociology and philosophy homework to a chatbot with a 1950s understanding of those subjects.\nImagine doctors outsourcing psych patient diagnoses to a chatbot with the same understanding.\nOn an arguably less \"serious\" but still critically important moral and political topic, imagine if all/most videogame art was outsourced to an AI engine with a 1990s sensibility for female characters. Same for all kinds of representation and diversity.\nHow about politics and political science in general... ha!\nEtc, etc etc.\nIt is NOT the case that we already have discovered all the true answers to the big questions, and we can merely turn to a \"knowledge calculator\" like ChatGPT to spit out the truth.\nEven if AI can pretty accurately reflect the discourse of the day, as it is currently understood and accepted, our collective knowledge and culture will stagnate if we do not actively participate in developing it, and we will all pay the price for that.", ">\n\nThese are all moralistic arguments that ultimately don’t mean anything.", ">\n\nI would say they are more epistemic arguments, which do matter greatly in the context of education (which is what the op was referring to).", ">\n\nAre any of these things mentioned actually realistic concerns? Someone is going to train an AI bot to generate 90s female art characters with big tits?\nNo. Lol and even if someone did, who cares?", ">\n\nConsidering how many people believe obviously fake stories that have no supporting evidence (and in spite of contrary evidence), yes, I believe they are very real concerns.\nIf an AI says we should use Brawndo in farming because its got what plants crave (electrolytes), we should probably be able to justify it with reasoning beyond \"the AI says so.\"", ">\n\nWho is suggesting we do anything “just because an AI said so”? \nDo you read books and think everything in it is true “because the book says so”?", ">\n\nHow do you determine if what the book/ai said is false?\nYou would typically do it through a process of research and discovery.\nPeoples' ability to do research and discovery will be greatly diminished if we rely on AI to do those things for us (which is what the previous posters were suggesting).\nTherefore, reliance on AI will lead to us losing the ability to discern if the results of what the AI is saying is correct.", ">\n\nWhat? Lol that doesn’t make any sense at all. \nIt is not like if we use AI then all previous knowledge is simply forgotten or lost. It’s all still there.", ">\n\nForcing homework at school makes that \"not homework\", and this approach has never worked. You cant reject change, it never works. Every time there has been a game changing event, people adapted. Those who tried to reject change disappeared. Horse carriages disappeared from roads because something else replaced it. Some people supposedly rejected progress, but they are lying to themselves, they still use modern tech or services at some point.\nAnyway, the change is here, and it made essays irrelevant. Time to find another way to test people skills. \nGive it a little time though. ChatGPT costs a ginormous amount of money to run and will not stay free for long either.", ">\n\nIt's not just ChatGPT, the actual innovation is not the interface but lies in algorithms that can recreate natural language of similar quality with smaller data samples. There are also OpenSource datasets like ThePile, etc. so even if OpenAI moves to a paid model (and they will, quickly. You can already sign up to be first in line for the API), there will be other free providers.", ">\n\nHaving coded AIs, I disagree. ChatGPT is a regular trained AI. The novelty is the scale of the operation, and the fact there is a public API.\nNo one ever spent that much money on resources to run and train an AI publicly. I am pretty sure google has done something similar with user data sets to make their search engine and general ecosystem.\nI wish there was a way to have algorithms working with smaller data sets and produce similar results, but it kind of does not work that way.", ">\n\nThere are already tools to identify ChatGPT generated texts. Such tools will improve as another use of literally the same technology.\nJust as teachers submit essays for identifying plagiarism, teachers will submit essays for identifying AI-generated text. \nFurther, a focus could change from grading students on what they know to grading students' ability to ask meaningful, content-based questions about the subject. After all, knowing facts isn't particularly valuable as a skill. Integrating facts and discovering valuable questions is still something that remains a uniquely human skill. And is where people will continue to add value as AI becomes more advanced.", ">\n\nStudents have always been able to 'cheat' on work done outside the classroom, by copying or somehow getting others to do their work for them, even before the internet. Yes with more advanced modern technology it is easier but this has always been a concern. \nAs regular learning environments like supervised classrooms are already 'quarantined' in the way you descibe you are fundementally just suggesting an increase in learning hours as a supplement to homework. This has been suggested by many for various reasons but it would overall cuase more issues than it fixes. It increases work load on teachers and administrators, stretching already thin educational budgets, and forces increased mental strain on children. It would limit their ability to do other recreational and out of ciriculum activities. This would be disruptive and controlling when the quantity of teaching and learning time that children recive is already considered sufficiant for a good education.", ">\n\nHell the only thing stopping me from using ChatGPT regularly for my work now is that it's always at capacity.", ">\n\nApply tests that are hand written, doesnt matter how a person obtains the knowledge, actually learning the subject is most important thing.", ">\n\nThere is no amount of ChatGPT that could influence a good old oral exam where the teacher evaluates the understanding via a little chat.", ">\n\nSo tired of this view. We shouldn’t be fighting technology. Teach kids to use the resources they have to find answers. It’s such a waste of 12 years of school, teaching kids to memorize facts and follow rules. \nInstead, every test should be open book and reward the best answers. Ask the kids to show their work or explain their thought process so we reward understanding of a topic rather than memorization of steps or text.", ">\n\n20 years ago, there were already homework communities and learn groups. Even from the publishers of school books and with free access to tutors. Ok, they didnt do the final homework for me, but gave me a great starting point.\nBeing the kid who transcribes a wiki page was already stupid back then when others could call you out:\nBut I guess the actual problem is lack of digital literacy with teachers, they're always 5-10 years behind.", ">\n\nIf you are testing skills that can be done by free tools on the internet, then you are testing irrelevant skills.\nThe best way to educate kids is to test for skills they need, not skills they objectively don't.\nI was able to witness a couple of universities adapt to tests during quarantine, and follow reports on how the new methods would be used going forward.\nThe results where thus:\nMass offline testing is incredibly cost efficient (one examiner per ~300 students), but the tests results are a poor indicator of real world performance.\nOne to One testing is incredibly expensive, but can, when done right, test actual understanding and performance.\nBoth will be useful, of course. Mass testing is most useful when used in a way that students aren't incentivized to cheat, such as when framed as practice.", ">\n\nOne of the upsides of needing to prevent this kind of tech from cheating assignments is that teachers should focus on having students be able to do their homework at school. (As a former teacher, we were trying to do this already- no more than 15 min of homework per class). \nI dont think we need to do quite what you say. We just need to limit outside electronics and have in-person classrooms or computer labs with programs designed to be AI-proof. \nI have ALWAYS believed that cell phones/internet watches should be stored in school lockers (at most) and never allowed anywhere else on campus during the school day. If anyone needs to contact the students they contact the desk who relays their message/other need. Many schools already do this.", ">\n\n∆\nI agree with this. It would help.", ">\n\nThank you!", ">\n\nThat is utterly pointless.\nThere is no reason to limit the available tools.\nThis just reminds me of the entire \"you won't have a calculator wherever you go\" argument.\nSchool should instead put a focus on responsibly using available tools.", ">\n\nAnd if students choose to use them irresponsibly, what should schools do?\nAnd can you please define what constitutes responsible use? Because despite knowing about plagiarism, people still copy and paste from the internet. Perfect abstinence is easier than perfect moderation after all.", ">\n\nJust return to hand written essays and have more oral exams.", ">\n\n∆l\nActually of all comments having oral exams compliments my post and I agree with you. Enjoy the delta.", ">\n\nIn a Faraday cage.", ">\n\nIf children can just generate work with ChatGPT, it simply shows that children are not being taught anything valuable. (Once ChatGPT responses can be generated in almost unlimited amounts at very low cost, it necessarily means those responses are of low value)\nInstead shouldn't we be teaching children to provide more valuable outcomes that ChatGPT can't replicate?", ">\n\nBeing able to do on your own what ChatGPT does with access to an immense amount of data and processing power is valuable. The actual writing isn't valuable, obviously, but it would be silly to expect it to be. It's just a side effect of practice, you spend time making things of little or no value to build up the skills you'll need to make something that actually matters. That's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\nI think you'd be hard pressed to teach a class of children to outperform ChatGPT in writing without ever asking them to write something that could also be done via AI. What would that even look like?", ">\n\n\nThat's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\n\nIt is a problem. That is why I hated math class until 2nd year of university.", ">\n\nDid you start discovering novel math results in your second year of university, or was that just the point at which you first encountered problems you found interesting, despite the fact that someone else had already solved them before? Thinking back the class you didn't hate, do you think it should be removed if someone can construct an AI to give all the answers you gave?", ">\n\nThis is only a method for evaluating students, it doesn't do anything to educate them.\nChatgpt is potentially a great tool for education but trying to find complex ways around it for homework is pointless. When testing fact retention is required using school/university computers with no web browsing makes sense. For any other test or situation it's a tool that might be used.", ">\n\nI understand OPs concern. That said, I do not think you can create true quarantine for a multitude of reasons. \nThe biggest one is probably time. I worked through high school and university. Because I lived in the middle of nowhere it was about a 30 min drive to high school and then an hour to uni. Having to stay at these quarantine zones to complete assignments would have been hell on my schedule, car, and wallet. \nYou said it yourself, if someone is going to cheat, they will cheat. If I had to do the work in a quarantine zone, what exactly stops me from doing the actual work on my computer at home, printing it all out, and then just writing that into the computer at the quarantine zone? Unless you want to try having students write an entire essay in their hour long class? There has to be a point where they go home and then this falls apart.", ">\n\nThere are already lots of ways to cheat in homework and mostly our steps to deal with that amount to the honour system, and by university level, automated plagiarism detection (which can be quite easily avoided). The point you \"won't argue\" that people will cheat if given the opportunity is probably the actual crux of what's wrong with your suggestion and the part that needs a big [citation needed]. Concluding that the majority of people are fundamentally dishonest is a big assumption to handwave away. \nIf you want an education, cheating is stupid. Ultimately you might get a paper qualification out of it but you'll have actually learned nothing - you won't hold up long against someone who has done it properly when you actually have to apply the skills. Or if you do, then the assignments weren't that crucial to the learning in the first place.", ">\n\nMany of the things I learned in school were largely irrelevant. I couldn't use a calculator to do long division. After I passed those early elementary school years I never did long division again. I wouldn't even argue learning the long division algo is mandatory. It's nice to have learnt it I guess, but I spent way too many hours on it. I can see learning fundamentals of essay writing, etc, are great, but why can't we just evolve to learn more effective things in life? ChatGPT should be used as a tool, not viewed as a detriment.", ">\n\nIt'd suggest that the best way to educate them is to embrace ChatGBT and teach them to use it well. Your method is a bit like teaching kids to do math without calculators or accounting without excel or financial software. There is some value, but it runs out very quickly and you're at a social and competetive disadvantage for taking some archane principled approach to education that is more of a defense of \"how we used to do it\".\nI'm old enough to remember when using a word processor was sometime forbidden for reasons of fairness - that seems entirely disconnected now from doing good work and it's almost hard to envision the thought process of those who thought everything should be hand written for students. \nIsn't the kid who is amazing at utilizing tools like ChatGBT going to do much better in the world than the one who does not? Your idea of \"proper education\" would easily regress back to needing to do all subjects scrawled in dirt with sticks and grunted in non-standardized language.", ">\n\nOR, chatgpt will be a great boon to the entire education system:\nIncreased accessibility: ChatGPT and other AI-powered systems can provide education to individuals who otherwise would not have access to it, due to geographical, financial, or other barriers.\n\nPersonalized learning: ChatGPT can provide personalized education experiences based on each student's strengths, weaknesses, and learning style.\n\n24/7 availability: ChatGPT can operate 24/7, providing students with access to education at any time, anywhere, which can be especially beneficial for those with demanding schedules or for individuals in remote areas.\n\nScalability: ChatGPT can provide education to a large number of students simultaneously, which could help to address the shortage of teachers and resources in some areas.\n\nCost-effectiveness: ChatGPT can be a more cost-effective option for providing education compared to traditional methods, as it does not require physical classrooms or teachers.\n\nImproved student engagement: ChatGPT can provide interactive, engaging learning experiences that can hold students' attention and foster deeper learning.\n\n--Source: ChatGPT", ">\n\nThere a lots of places where texts and exams are “open book”. The questions have to be written differently, and the point is that you’re not testing someone’s ability to memorize, but rather their ability to understand. This is a more difficult test to write, so in theory AI could force education to improve since everyone would a virtual tutor with them at all times.", ">\n\nI'm a teacher and I've been thinking a lot about this the last couple months. Changes within the education system/curriculum/syllabus/retraining of teachers will take far too long to keep up with the ease of access to, and success of, chatgpt and AI in general. \nThe only solution moving forward both short and long term is to embrace it, there is no stopping it now anyway and if we don't all want to be out of a job in 5 years we need to - \n- demonstrate feasible/moral/ethical use of such tools\n- create more opportunities for collaborative learning/hands-on/problem solving tasks and ones that increase communication skills between peers. \nHow this applies to each individual, specific task will vary and must require a lot of creativity and trial and error, but I think relying too heavily on your department of education to handle this (or most 'boots on the ground' problems) will ultimately only degrade a students experience and ability for learning.", ">\n\nI'm with you on what you're trying to accomplish. I just don't know that it's the \"best\" way. \nFor instance, how is homework performed in school superior to trusting the kids to learn the material, which would then be tested by oral exam? And yes, I do believe that asking a student to verbally explain a topic is a really good way to gauge mastery.", ">\n\nThere is not a hope in hell that we'll go back to hand written stuff. That's not how technology works. As the music companies. There are better ways to show you know a subject, for sure, than the current out of-date ones. That's for sure. Have you ever taken an on-line exam?", ">\n\nI argue to let them use chatGPT as it will be their future. This is similar to my generations \"you'll never walk around with a calculator so learn math.\" The future children will grow into a society where work means utilizing AI tech to help them thrive. If chatGPT helps them write an essay, and it's good, it means they're using resources. I agree, however, that we should supplement this with actual reading and writing.", ">\n\nI would argue that most of time that ChatGPT and similar technologies is going to be an issue is in 8-12 grade and college.\nThis technology is not going away, and it's only going to improve. Personally I would treat it like calculators, audio books and spell check.\nTech kids how to use the technology properly. Sure it's somewhat handy to calculate numbers in your head, but having the ability to do math in your head does not give you much of an advantage in today's world and not being able to doesn't hurt you much. But it's still critical to know formulas and how to peace together algebraic statements and word problems. \nKnowing how to spell properly is less important than knowing proper word usage - most times you're writing something it can be spell-checked in real time. Sure it's \"terrible that today's kids...\" don't know how to spell... but it's not going to affect their career. \nEnter ChatGPT - same thing. Should I spend the time to write a white paper on the changing advertising landscape to alert my boss about the a potential seismic shift in advertising revenue, or should I ask ChatGPT to write it? As a user I have to understand its limits and potential copywrite issues, but even more importantly how to verify that what it writes is correct and targeting the right audience. Is data from before 2020 going to be recent and accurate enough for my thesis? How do I supplement the discussion with real-world data? \nThis is our new reality. We should be learning how to use the tools properly, not trying to figure out to lock it down (which frankly makes as much sense as locking down the use of calculators or spell check).", ">\n\nI think there are already apps in place that are able to detect AI generated text (Read this article).\nAlso, I think a better method would be to simply have a database of ChatGPT (could be encrypted) generated text and make it available to already existing software that is use to detect plagiarism (this is just an exemple amongst many)", ">\n\nFrankly I don’t think high schoolers and below should be given homework or tests at all. One learns magnitudes better through exploration as opposed to mindless repetition. Engage with these kids intellectually, make them free thinking Athenians, not bags of knowledge of which they have no idea how to use.\nDoes it not surprise anyone that we train people for over a decade in intellect yet hardly have any intellectuals?", ">\n\nI would argue that society would be better off spending resources on teaching children how to use this tool effectively. Knowing how to get the right answer is what matters in this world.", ">\n\nThen answer this: Well why learn math at all? Seriously.\nWhy learn he concept of subtraction let alone division? I could and society has argued that with the advent of digital calculators. \nYet we learn it. \nLater we use calculators to take the mundane and already known processes to the next level. We abstract away the mundane. \nAs a EE having worked and am working on products you may be using right now to read this, when I develop new silicon and chips I don’t break out Karnaugh maps and lay down circuit using a T square and stencils of gates. But I sure the hell know what I’m doing and expect the tools to do for me. \nTeaching fundamentals of reading, writing, arithmetic, essays, research are just that fundamental.", ">\n\nI’d argue that the vast majority don’t need anything beyond basic math anyways. \nGo ask the average adult if they know the quadratic equation and what it means and you’d probably be disappointed.", ">\n\nChatGPT is here to stay, you'd better advocate for teaching people how to make the most of it and use it wisely instead of pretending it doesn't exist.\nOne of my favourite teachers always told students to use the best tools there are.", ">\n\nI think it depends completely on the topic. In my field of study, it’s fairly easy to come up with term paper assignments that the bot would be useless for. \nLooking back at the paper I wrote last year, I don’t see how any current bot could have helped, as it isn’t able to read or summarize specific sources (yet?).\nAn example of the type of assignments we get is “Discuss the role of state capacity in x and x conflict in light of (specific research paper)‘s dimensions of state capacity - do your findings confirm the findings of (authors), why or why not?\nThis way of combining literature made it difficult even for me to be on top of it, as there were no sources that had attempted this exact combination - it has to be original. \nAlso, I find it’s the best way to learn, because you have to rely on your own judgement and there are no shortcuts, even asking the professor was unhelpful as he wasn’t too familiar with the details.", ">\n\nThis is not the best way.", ">\n\n\nThese homework rooms would have Internet connected computers for use but access to ChatGPT would be filtered and blocked.\n\nThis wouldn't be feasible, there's far too many roundabout ways to still access ChatGPT. Security measures like domain filtering are just unproductive games of whack-a-mole. \nEdit: removed all the other stuff I wrote, as those points have already been mentioned in previous top-level comments.", ">\n\nHomework shouldn’t be the go-to method of “education” to begin with. Imo Universities should focus on the integral part of education: the lectures. Tools like chatgpt can help student who are actually interested in a subject to learn more easily about it, but whether students actually learn anything or not from a class won’t change regardless of if work is authentic or copied from an AI\nSource: I’m a college student and have had experience in both supervised environments where we had to do work without the use of computers/phones and solely-online environments where many students cheated", ">\n\nWhile this could work, it is not necessarily the best way in terms of accessibility and of learning in general. \nFirst, students with ADHD and certain other conditions may not necessarily be the able to be productive at all times, or at the specific time they have to work on those computers, especially if those computers are not in an environment ideal to that specific person. It would also not be very feasible to give students enough time on these computers to complete the bigger assignments and essays. \nSecond, while ChatGPT is quite advanced, it simply works by looking at language patterns and often gets factual details incorrect. For example, with bigger coding problems, it tries to import modules that do not exist or call on functions that it has not defined. In literature, it cannot analyze texts on much more than a surface level. I will admit it can use secondary sources for textual analysis, however, it is unable to come up with a clear thesis on its own. \nAdditionally, take-home tests can be just as easily cheated on using a normal Google search, and usually test thinking skills rather than understanding and knowledge. \nFinally, essay-writing and other types of assignments are generally not ideal for learning as they are only one type of skill, and university professors are recognizing this. Not only do they not work for all learning styles, but they are only used so commonly because of tradition. University professors are structuring assignments around ways that are innovative enough that ChatGPT is unable to work on them. Along with requiring specific readings which the AI might not have access to, and citing of all sources (which has always been a requirement that the AI might trip up on), they are also going away from the traditional essay format into others. For example, I am studying literature, a relatively essay-heavy field, and in my past few courses I have been asked to analyze comics (which the AI cannot read), edit other people’s essays and articles (from past courses), create a mock syllabus or lesson plan with justifications for each reading, and create annotated bibliographies as a stepping stone to an essay. All of these not only require different skills and encourage different types of learning and research but are quite difficult for an AI to do. \nAll in all, while your suggestion is great, the very nature of the AI and the fact that it exists at all is perhaps a sign that the best course of action is to rework the way we think about evaluation. After all, if an evaluation is such that an AI can complete it without the ability to actually think (it works by using observed language patterns), then perhaps the evaluation is not ideal.", ">\n\nI bet teachers and people thought the same thing about calculators when they came out or 1990s internet. AI bots like chat GPT are just a tool.", ">\n\nAll this effectively does is train kids to accomplish goals of a type that do not exist in the real world in a situation they will never realistically encounter. A better goal is adjusting testing criteria to account for this.\nThere might be very specific sets of knowledge for which rote memorization is appropriate, and for those, the air gapped testing may be appropriate. But I believe those are the exception rather than the rule. By and large, teaching kids to effectively utilize the tools that will be available to them is what we should be doing.", ">\n\nImagine learning where the only books are hand written.\nThe printing press took out a huge amount of repetitive labor in the learning process.\nAI/ChatGPT stands a good chance of removing a huge amount knowledge labor which stands between an idea and the end product. Learning to use the AI to best effect the Idea->End Product Chain is more important than worrying about memorizing formulae we will likely never need to remember. \nThe effort to restrict ChatGPT is just education system worrying about their Cheese Being Moved.", ">\n\nThis just doesn't make any sense to me. You're arguing that we shouldn't allow students to use tools they would have at their disposal in a real working environment, and for what? Why wouldn't you want students to use every tool at their disposal? How exactly is handicapping them helping them to understand the coursework?\nA much better approach would be to fundamentally alter how we teach to better prepare them for the workforce. Encouraging collaboration and creative problem solving skills is much more practical and effective.", ">\n\nChatGPT may pass the Bar, but I highly doubt it will replace lawyers or other professionals. \nThe whole point of credentialing is to drive accountability. Anyone can study the law and cite precedent without a law degree. Actually representing a client in a court of law requires oversight and knowledge. ChatGPT isn't perfect - it will make mistakes from time to time. So who is responsible when it makes a mistake? When is a client (who is not familiar with the law) supposed to know that a mistake has been made on their behalf? For this reason, until ChatGPT is literally perfect you're always going to need a credentialed professional to review the output.\nFor the record, I think ChatGPT is wonderful. But it's a tool that people will use, not a full-fledged replacement for professionals. My employer (a Fortune 500 company) has already rejected its use for internal projects. IT has the website blocked.", ">\n\nThe kids that are educated without its use will fall behind in business when faced with kids that are using it to its fullest extent.\nYou've successfully made an argument for people to succeed in a test that is worthless in the real world. Its parameters don't match.", ">\n\nThe best way to educate children is to teach them skills and strategies that will actually serve them in the workplace of the future. \nChatGPT already has reached the point of replacing humans (See Buzzfeed news). If ChatGPT can take the test or do the homework then what value is that education going to be to these students? Especially older students will quickly see rote memorization as a waste of time and so yes they probably will cheat if they have the opportunity. Trying to force these things to be “learned” and prove that knowledge by brute force banning things is going to be a costly uphill battle.", ">\n\nWhat if we modify how essays are written by students, by asking them to include citations (which is something ChatGPT can’t do)?\nWe can’t stop new tools from making old methods obsolete. But we can focus on enhancing critical thinking of students in a stepwise manner. When a new tool is created, think about how you can adapt rather than resist it.", ">\n\nWhy not just train an ai to spot ai written papers?", ">\n\nWhat about gradually putting more emphasis on oral assignments?", ">\n\nEverything you said makes perfect sense...IF the goal was to teach children simply how to write the perfect standard essay. But that is a very limited way of viewing education and what its real goal is. The real goal of education is to teach children how to think. To come up with the right questions, not just the right answers. In a world where a \"good enough\" essay on literally anything can be conjured as if by magic by a machine, what's the actual value of that exercise now? For a very long time teachers have used the essay as a way to evaluate how a person thinks. Now that a machine can write it for you, we need new ways to evaluate how students think. That's the real task we are facing. Fuck the essay, just like we ditched the slide rule for calculators and later computers, etc. Tools change but the real game remains the same: Think for yourself!", ">\n\nI'd say the best way would be to accept the reality of changing technology and reevaluating the approach we have towards education as a whole.\nGranted, I'd say that's only one half of the picture: reassessing how we conceive if jobs and labour in the face of increasing automation goes along with that, and I think neither really works without the other.\nBottom line is that human labour is more and more obsolete as time goes on, so human jobs will be less and less in demand (I'd argue moving away from a capitalistic system is the right call, but even if you don't, automation is still an incentive).\nSince a large part of the incentive of our current education system is \"prepare you for a job\" I think the whole thing is going to fall short in light of these kinds of systems developing.\nTheres lots of people now who pursue knowledge as a project of passion, rather than a means to an end, and I think moving to a system that supports and encourages that kind of ambition is the way to go.", ">\n\nI disagree. We should learn to use the tools we have efficiently. Otherwise you are not learning for your career but for some professors ego", ">\n\nThat’s not “education in the era of ChatGPT.” That’s education in the era before ChatGPT while we figure out what the world with ChatGPT will look like so we have some idea of what to do with it.\nThat’s also not “educating,” that’s just “assessment.” Assessment is simply a measuring system for education. As long as you think of the acquisition of knowledge and skill as requiring knowledge regurgitation and skill performance in isolation and divorced from context/individualized, then you’re going to end up at necessitating a kind of geofenced, Luddite assessment model. The training itself predicates the assessment method. How we assess is defined by how we teach, and vice versa.\nThe best assessment method to gauge understanding is, and always has been, conversation.\nAll we need to do is pair assessment with regular conversation between qualified teacher and student to determine if personal comprehension is present. Not an interview, not an interrogation — conversation. Problem solving performance contexts are also great revealer of internalized knowledge and skill.\nChatGPT is a relative nonissue if your approach to assessment is at all human.\nIt’s only a problem when you’re trying to mechanize and dehumanized education. “Rigorous” does not mean “mechanical.” We are going to have to trust the professional, knowledge- and skill-assessing judgements of humans who already know and can do.\nEducation reverts to having more emphasis on apprenticeship and mentorship models, where the relationship itself is part of the learning process. \n(The “accountability!” cranks are gonna love that…)", ">\n\nI have a strong suspicion that discussions like this, while very interesting, will be obsolete long before any changes can actually be implemented in schools. In fact, I'm pretty sure schools will be gone entirely in the near future.\nAs of right now, you can be taught almost any subject by an exceptionally well-spoken, fast and infinitely patient teacher called GPT to a university level, if not higher. Try it right now - go ask GPT to explain the political situation that allowed Alexander the Great to conquer Persia, or ask it to explain the raytracing algorithm. If there's a part you don't understand, ask it to clarify. You'll be amazed how accessible it makes advanced topics.\nNow, how long before we have VR software with a realistic-looking AI teacher, with an AI-generated voice, who can do the same thing, but respond to students' voices and use body language and visual demonstrations? Five years?\nHow long after that before this tech is cheap, and of such high quality that sending your kids to school will be a worse education?\nNow in, say, 20 years, we could have an AI system that takes a DNA sample, analyses a students genotype to understand what subjects they will be naturally good at, what education approaches will be most successful, and continuously improves its model of the student's behavior by observing them. It crafts a decades-long education journey tailored to the individual, and accompanies them the entire way.\nTeachers, as far as they've existed so far, don't have a chance.", ">\n\nAre you trying to test someone or teach them?\nIf the latter, why do you care about cheating? This reminds me of the ol' teachers who used to restrict calculators because \"you won't always have a calculator with you.\"", ">\n\nYou forget that for 99% of homework students could just copy each other's work. Having the answers out in the world accessible is not a new problem. You just make homework a small part of the grades and you make sure students understand it's important to actually do it or they won't do well on the tests.", ">\n\nThere are so many people that can’t do the basic math examples you mentioned somewhere and they went to school at a time when there were no calculators.\nOn the other hand I was allowed to use calculators in school pretty much the moment I left elementary school and I am really quite good at math even without assistance.\nTool usage is one of humanities key features and trying to work against it instead of finding ways to incorporate new technology into school and life seems backwards.", ">\n\nIronically the teacher will have to use an AI to decipher the \"hand written\" assignments.", ">\n\nYou can't force people to learn.", ">\n\nWhat about teaching how to think rather than how to memorize? Just a thought 💭", ">\n\nThey need to get rid of homework, and have students do their work while they're at school. It's awful, they just pile it on, even if a class only has a little homework that day, there's like 6 or 7 classes so it's a nightmare for students. Seems like the only way to prevent cheating is have them do work in class, so I hope for the students sake, they do that.", ">\n\nI’ll throw my idea into the ring, though we’re still a few years off from this technology:\nWe should have students interact with AI tutors that can prompt them questions and point out details. Then they can collaborate on assignments, and the AI tutor can give feedback and suggest snippets. The AI can evaluate their work and their engagement with the material.", ">\n\nOne of Transformers main applications is in search. Ie you get a set of embeddings you can compare the pairwise distances between embedding and get a list of scores that tell you which embeddings are most similar to the input. \nEssentially tools like google are made to reduce the search space for a given query collect likely links and then rerank the most likely results. \nChatgpt basically does this in a more direct way of searching through a space of potential responses. Basically trained on a task to predict next token given the previous tokens or fill in a mask\nTransformers permeate everything students use from the recommendation algorithms on TikTok Facebook, YouTube to search systems in google. \nIn my opinion students should absolutely not be taught to fear these tools tho I do agree they be tested in constrained environments to challenge them. Current systems should not be used to learn unless you have a clear understanding and are willing to check every word and check your reasoning. Future systems will be much better though so this problem isn’t going anywhere. \nIf anything there should be a push to make these ideas more interpretable to a younger audience and give them the tools to navigate an increasingly complex market of ideas. They should be aware of the limitations and how when they use a piece of software their actions and the actions of those around them are influencing what they see next. \nIt should be used and taught with rigor. \nIt’s programming 2.0", ">\n\nDude no; \nChatGPT is the computer. \nDo you want to be the education system that banned the computer and then wondered why all the other education systems output modern tech workers, while your education system kept outputting chimney sweeps and car factory workers?", ">\n\nHW only exists to make students practice, and generally is worth less than 20% of the grade in a class. If a student chooses to use chat GPT to bypass it then that’s the student’s loss.\nUltimately exams are what schools use to evaluate a students knowledge and I don’t think that’s going to change anytime soon", ">\n\nThere are already programs that check if something was written by an AI or not. Also no student I know actually uses chatGPT for major assignments because chatGPT doesn’t know every text to ever be published so it doesn’t understand the context, and most of the time will just bullshit an answer that’s incorrect.\nEveryone I know that uses chatGPT for school do so for either for assignments so small and simple that it doesn’t make sense to quarantine, or they use it as a more advanced google that can answer questions more accurately than a search engine could, essentially just saving time.\n(most) students are using chatGPT largely as a productivity and time management tool rather than to cheat.", ">\n\nThis is like saying “in the age of calculators, the only way to ensure kids learn maths is to ban calculators in school”. If looked at correctly, chatgpt is an effect multiplier, learning just has to be rejigged to have kids learn to do things that they can’t simply ask chatgpt to do for them.", ">\n\nLess course work and more exams is the future in a world with chatGPT.", ">\n\nChatGPT will be a big no issue soon. I work in a research field and this was something we worried about last year. As of now there are multiple tools and even more being developed that catch the use of ChatGPT. There has been research published that list ChatGPT as a co-author, but for most research, and use by students, it will simply be forbidden and will easily be caught as well. The program does well but it has a particular style that can be caught. Again it will be a non-issue soon.", ">\n\nThis is like forbidding people to use a calculator because it can give you the result instant. A better way is to teach them how to use the calculator, because its here now and won't go away. Same with GPT. Children can learn way better/faster with ChatGPD if used correctly. Imaging having a private teacher for free which helps you learning every time of the day.", ">\n\nLet me ask you this. If ChatGPT could complete a students whole assignment, what would that student have learned from doing that assignment on their own that won’t simply be replaced with ChatGPT by a employer in the future?\nEven if ChatGPT doesn’t replace workers for a decade, why teach students skills that will inevitably be replaced and leave said students jobless in a decade?\nChatGPT won’t only be used in the workforce either. Linus Tech Tips has a video showing how ChatGPT can help people learn new skills and do troubleshooting on their own. If I remember correctly, he manages to completely build a pc by only strictly following what ChatGPT tells him to. It even managed to suggest the best parts for that computers specific use case. It was nowhere near perfect, but in the future it will get there.\nSince ChatGPT is such a useful tool in the workforce and at home, I think it’s crucial we teach students how to use it instead of banning them from it. Maybe students should be given a problem and tasked to use ChatGPT to find the solution or have students attempt to learn a new topic with ChatGPT. I’m not a teacher, I just thought of those examples of the top of my head. I’m sure qualified teachers could think of better assignments than me.\nI could see ChatGPT helping a mechanic diagnose an issue so the mechanic could spend more time fixing the problem rather than diagnosing and I can think of a few examples in other jobs as well where ChatGPT will help a worker be more efficient and save more time.\nI think, if anything, we’re setting students up for failure by not teaching them about these tools that will take over the workforce and help in everyday life.", ">\n\nYou’ll still have to pass a test. Relax.", ">\n\nIt “fairs” extremely well? Maybe some additional time spent observing ChatGPT could actually benefit some", ">\n\nThere’s just no way you can use ChatGPT to do all of your work for you and be successful at any moderately high level of academic pursuit. Not without learning the material yourself, and if you’ve done that, I don’t think it matters so much whether you used chatGPT and for what along the way.\nFrankly if you start our using chatGPT early in school, you won’t even be able to ask the right questions in the right way and include the necessary refinements to do more complex and demanding assignments down the road. \nAlso, tests are still a thing aren’t they? ChatGPT doesn’t help you perform in person in a monitored environment - not in a way that would allow you to skip learning the material. I don’t really get this aspect of your cmv. As long as tests don’t allow access to ChatGPT, anyone who didn’t learn the material is going to be exposed..", ">\n\nThere are already programs that detect ChatGPT writing.", ">\n\nThe children who want to cheat will always find a way to do so. It doesn’t matter how much you do to restrict it, it’ll just make them find new means of doing so. \nSource: I did GCSE’s in the UK, AP in the US. Trust, kids will cheat even in sterile environments. Especially if it’s a huge room and there are few moderators. A lot of us are scared of repercussions but those who aren’t won’t let anything stand in there way—region and proctoring be damned.", ">\n\nI require them to complete an outline first. Outline must be submitted to me before I take the essay. Google doc lets you see that they write it and when each sentence was written. It’s helped.", ">\n\nCHATGPT is a tool, and in some applications (not all), it can help students do their homework. Consider the calculator. Do students not need to learn formulas and critical thinking just because they can punch numbers into calculators?\nNo, math is still a skill that is valuable if for no other reason then because it trains your brain to solve problems.\nOne of the things that surprises me is that ChatGPT can use words and explain things to students even when a teacher is not available or when there isn’t one. we should consider this an educational opportunity rather than a disadvantage.\nThere are so many amazing things we humans can do when we simply have tools to help us. ChatGPT is no different.", ">\n\nYou can’t force people to live in the past. Chat GPT is here to stay. Education now needs to focus on teaching people how to use AI, and how to develop a skill that can’t be replaced by AI.", ">\n\nHow about getting students engaged in what they’re learning and excited to learn. Find what they’re good at and double down on it. Don’t make school a fucking quarantine bubble. Socialize, allow them to teach and learn from each other. Replace the potential for cheating with collaboration assignments in person. “Children will cheat if given the opportunity” is such horse shit. If somebody doesn’t know or wasn’t taught something well then yea they’re gonna look to get it right so they can obtain approval. How about teaching them so they won’t cheat??", ">\n\nThats not it. I don’t have an answer for you, but thats not it.", ">\n\nHow about just have the kids do a presentation on \"their\" report with Q&A at the end. They'll have no choice but to know the info.... which is the point.", ">\n\nWell, making an AI that detects if something was made by an AI shouldnt be hard", ">\n\nI wonder if anyone has tried training a machine to look at assignments and give a confidence interval of the assignment being either human or machine in origin.", ">\n\nYeah we call that stuff examns...", ">\n\nThe problem with your suggested approach is that it just reinforces the current failures of the education system. It doesn't actually teach us the skills that you will be able to use in the field. \n\nYou can look up formulas for physics and you can double check online for any coding questions. Chat gpt is a tool and I think forbidding students from using it will just be a disservice to them and everyone in the future. It's not going to go away any time soon so how about instead of teaching children to cheat more effectively, we teach them how to use chat gpt to its full potential? It can speed up so many tasks to such a degree that students will be able to recieve more advanced education in the time that was saved by using chat gpt", ">\n\nI mean, there are plenty of good reasons already said, but wouldn't it just be easy to cheat. You get home, ask Chat.gpt for a result, print it out. Bring it with you to the school quarantine, copy it into the computer. (Unless you would like a full strip search of the students upon entering, which is wrong in so many ways)", ">\n\nI could use this in my program all I wanted and pass courses with perfect scores, and at the end of my degree I’d have a licensure exam that I’d fail cause I didn’t learn anything.", ">\n\nGreat idea! While let's just ignore the real world and keep our heads in the sand. Let's also get rid of computers and ink pens and go back to stone and chisel!" ]
> I feel like this is a modern day equivalent to saying that now that the internet is available at the family computer, students must complete their work entirely under supervision. AI is here and more that is better is coming and people need to learn how to integrate with it rather than fight it. It's going to take some jobs. Just like the cotton gin and steam drill took work from people who then immediately transitioned to other work that the machine couldn't do and to running to machine itself. People will need to run ChatGPT. Feed it, verify its output, clean it up and submit the report based on CGPT4.0's write up. Individuals need to know the material, sure, but we can't really keep students off the internet and trying to do so just wastes resources and makes teachers pull their hair out.	[ "/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^\| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.", ">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?", ">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.", ">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?", ">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.", ">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?", ">\n\nYou mean a grade?", ">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication", ">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.", ">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)", ">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.", ">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.", ">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.", ">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.", ">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?", ">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.", ">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.", ">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.", ">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.", ">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.", ">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.", ">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.", ">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.", ">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.", ">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.", ">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.", ">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.", ">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.", ">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use", ">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.", ">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.", ">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.", ">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.", ">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.", ">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.", ">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.", ">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).", ">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.", ">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.", ">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.", ">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.", ">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.", ">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.", ">\n\n\nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \n\nWhy? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it. \n\nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \n\nWhy? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? \nLet's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project. \n\nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.\n\nTotally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator.", ">\n\nFor the most part, knowledge workers perform a given amount of work in a given amount of hours, and the number of them hired by a company is TotalHoursNeeded/NumHoursPerEmployee. E.g. if you have 100 manyears of work to get done in a typical year, you employ 100 people.\nChat GPT isn't going to \"replace\" people wholesale, because as you say someone still needs to supervise it. But it looks to be on track to increase the productivity of programmers (can write a first draft of code and finds many of the bugs instantly). \nSame for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones. \nSo now the TotalNeeded is decreased by some percentage, let's say 10% to start. Now you only need 90 human programmers to do that same work. With 25% efficiency gain, you need 75. With 50%, 50. Etc. \nOr take translation jobs. Today, an editor spends roughly 3 minutes per word editing machine translated text, and 1 minute per word editing human-translated text. As long as editors are more expensive per hour than first translation people, it still makes sense much of the time to hire translators, because the software isn't free. \nBut the graph of machine translation \"efficiency\" is trending towards taking the same amount of time to edit as a human translator. As soon as that's hit, there's literally no reason to hire human translators, only editors. \nAnd if the editing time goes down to 30 seconds/word because of further AI assistance to the editor, you only need half as many of those.", ">\n\nThere is currently two better solutions being worked on - one of which is already being used to some degree. \nThe first is ChatGPT developers themselves making moves to make AI written works to be identified by \"watermark\" or similar. I don't thi k this one has taken effect at all yet. \nAnother is by a separate dev team that allows teachers to use software to determine the amount of an essay, for example, that is written by AI what the likelihood of any one sentence or paragraph to have been written by AI. This allows the teachers to use discretion when determining if the student used the AI in a way that they find acceptable or not. This way instead kf running from the scary AI educators can actually utilize tyhe AI with students to help them develop their writing and other communications.", ">\n\nWhat about kids with transportation issues? When I was in school I knew kids that drove almost an hour each way to get there. I certainly couldn’t have asked my parents to drop everything to take me all the way to school so I could do my homework if I forgot. Bus schedules? Do you think schools want to waste more money by burning more gas for extra routes? I understand where you’re coming from, but for a fair amount of children—especially in poorer, more rural areas—that getting to school and back is such a delicate balancing act that such a thing would just punish them.", ">\n\nI've seen a few key things from academics testing out ChatGPT (I have not signed up myself):\n\nIt tends to produce confident, convincing nonsense. It doesn't actually understand what it's writing about, and I hear it shows.\nIt makes up citations. Real authors in the field, real journals... but made-up titles. Things like that, since, again, it doesn't actually understand citations.\n\nThis suggests that, for assignments requiring the demonstration of genuine, in-depth understanding, and not merely the ability to summarize facts, ChatGPT will fail.\nA similar example that you bring up in the comments is programming cheat sheets into calculators - but for well-designed engineering exams (including the licensure exams, at least in the US), cheat sheets are fine and often either allowed or provided. A well-designed exam tests the ability to apply principles, not knowledge of equations, so a cheat sheet is harmless, or even allows the exam to work better (since people aren't distracted with memorizing equations).", ">\n\nThere are three criticisms that I have of this approach. \n\n\nShould we not teach to the environment that we live in? Yes, education often imposes arbitrary constraints like time tests but for research and reports why not let people use and work around all resources? If you can work around chat gpt to work efficiently, then do it. You learn what it can and can’t do and how to use it effectively as a tool. \n\n\nCan chatGPT on it’s own actually write a good essay? From what I have seen it can pull together a few sources. It can generally write fluff based on other things that it has seen. But it struggles to write analysis. It can’t interrogate a source or make value judgements. It could be useful for doing some filler or providing ideas but if to do an actual report, I think it would be insufficient. \n\n\nAn assignment that can be done using chatgpt is probably boring. Here I am writing an essay for no reason other than I find it interesting to discuss this topic. Perhaps, we arent giving students interesting enough assignments or we are overloading them to the point that they don’t have the time to engage? If chatGPT turns out to be an issue maybe it’s more of an indictment of the structures and norms of education.", ">\n\n\n\nhomework in the form of essays, take home tests, coding assignments, would be completed on school grounds. \n\n\nCongratulations, you've invented the \"cram school\".\nI'd recommend reading through your post again and actually thinking about the things you've said. Because essentially, you're merely advocating for the wholesale elimination of homework and for education outside of that to remain totally unchanged. It's almost literally, \"Make the school day 30% longer\".\nMy solution to the \"problem\" of students potentially using ChatGPT to cheat on homework: I don't think you need a hilariously convoluted system of homework \"boiler rooms\" redolent of national security apparatus, that requires schools to adopt ruinously expensive and disruptive technological and administrative changes.\nIt would be sufficient if we institute a system whereby teachers are encouraged to, let's say... \"test\" their students, whether by regular written exams or by talking to them in what I'll call \"classes\", to ensure they understand the material they've been assigned to learn.\nThis method ensures that students cannot use AI homework bots to coast through classes (since they'll literally be found out the very next class), and has the added benefit of not adding three hours to every teacher's day.", ">\n\nWhat about pen and ink?", ">\n\narguably I can just copy a ChatGPT output by hand. So I think that is a first level measure, but not a complete solution.", ">\n\nIt's a better solution than prison just because the curriculum can't keep up with technology.\nWhen calculators arrived on everyone's phone and everyone's pocket did you advocate for the same solution? Unlikely, so why only now with this system?", ">\n\nWell I did and I was. When I was studying engineering in the 80s we routinely could not arrive at exams with a calculator. Even then calculators were programmable enough to allow students to write cheat sheets in calculator memory.\nIt forced us to memorize equations, principals of engineering, and independent thinking. I’m a better engineer because I did.", ">\n\nSo you're what, almost 60? And you think what's best for children is to be like you? Don't you think you may be a bit out of touch?\nAlso, your view was about K12 students, not engineering students.", ">\n\nNo. As I replied, leaning on tools as a crutch all your life will limit your ability and function as a human. For example, you could argue that basic math isn’t necessary. As matter of fact that was an argument years ago with the advent of calculators.\nHowever, humans should be able to exist and functions without a digital crutch. You should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator. You should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google. There are basic elements of duration necessary since we are all still wet grey matter.", ">\n\n\nYou should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator\n\nBut why?\n\nYou should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google\n\nAgain, why?\nWhere do you get your \"should\" from?\nI have basically all human knowledge in my hand, every equation or conversion I'll ever need day to day, even every language I'll likely ever encounter. Why shouldn't I leave my brain free to think about what it wants and to use my incredible resource as and when it's needed?\nDo you envision some Saw-like situation where you're locked to a wall and need to solve maths equations at pain of death?", ">\n\nThe less you use your brain the less likely your body is to maintain it. Our body functions through a use or lose it principle. Just look people who lose movement function/muscle just by being bedridden for a long time. Our brain is not different.\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.", ">\n\nIs wasting resources on process you can deletage outside not using your brain? You free up that space to put to what you decide is important.\n\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.\n\nThe weakest man with a gun can take out the strongest bodybuilder.", ">\n\nAnd if you decide Tik tok and Netflix are important? How do you think that will affect the cognitive ability of kids?\nI didn't mention strength nor physical strength. And even then the strongest man with a gun will probably take out the weakest man with a gun.(An actual fair comparison)", ">\n\nCouldn't chatgpt (or somesuch AI) be asked \"Hey - did you write this?\" and nip this sort of thing in the bud?", ">\n\nNo, Chat GPT doesn't remember everything it's said, the potential things it could say are huge and even if someone wrote something that Chat GPT might say, it could be a coincidence.", ">\n\nWell, strike that idea then.\nStill though - there must be some way to use AI to deal with this. \"set a thief to catch a thief\" and all that.", ">\n\nChat GPT (and most generative AIs) use GANs to generate content. \nIn laymen's terms (and extremely simplified as it's above my level of understanding) a GAN is 2 AI systems competing against each other, a creator AI that creates content and a checker AI that decides if the content was genuine or made by the other AI. \nSo any automated way to tell if it's AI generated can be built into the checker AI in future versions and the creator AI will learn to avoid whichever features the checker AI is spotting.", ">\n\nChatGPT is just another mechanism for reducing the need for labor, and it's not going away. \nChildren will need to be educated in both how to make effective use of it (for as long as it's not sufficient to completely eliminate mental labor), and also in the ethics of not using it. Always forcing them to write in airgapped places isn't going to do that, it just makes them resent it. \nAlso: essay writing on a scale needed to really learn long-form writing is not very amenable to doing in an airgapped classroom, because honestly we're not using dead-tree sources of information anymore already, so doing their research pretty much has to include doing it on line. \nBut really: laborious manual long-form essay writing is going to go the way of penmanship and looking things up in a library as an unneeded skill very quickly. We need children to adjust to that reality of the modern world rather than pretending it will go away. \nPeople are still needed (for now) to do the important part of writing essays without doing the laborious bit that ChatGPT automates anyway: deciding what to write, and editing it into a convincing and well-written form. \nForcing kids to spend a lot of time learning how to write the basic bulk part of essays is a lot like teaching them how to make buggy-whips in shop class: a pointless exercise. \nIt would be better to give them all prewritten ChatGPT essays and have them learn the limitations and capabilities.", ">\n\nIs ChatGPT really that much more effective than just grabbing things off Wikipedia? I was asking it things about elections and it was just Wikipedia from two years ago", ">\n\nThe answer is NEVER to limit technology. It’s to teach the new generation how to use that technology to achieve the same goal.\nIt’s pointless to ban computers and teach the memorization of dates in history class. It’s much more productive to teach online research skills so that if an individual needs to know the date of a particular moment in history, they can reliably Google it.\nChatGPT is the same. It renders writing essays as pointless, and it necessitates the teachers to adapt to new teaching styles, such as teaching the skills on how best to manipulate ChatGPT to return the information you need.", ">\n\nI was banned from using programming calculators when I studied engineering in the 80s during exams. It forced the students to all be on the same level playing field and forced us to actually know the equations, their applications, and the processes of whatever engineering course I was taking.\nIt made us better engineers.", ">\n\nHow does handicapping you make you a better engineer? If I put you and an engineer trained with technology in the same room together, who do you think would accomplish the task faster?", ">\n\nThe handicapped engineer, easily. The point of forcing students to actually learn the material is so that they understand how to reason about the underlying processes when they need to troubleshoot something going wrong, and understand the tradeoffs between approaches and how to select the best one for the task. \nOnce you understand things deeply you don't actually need training in doing things quickly because it's immediately intuitive how to apply a technological process to save time. The guy that leaned heavily on technology is basically fucked if he has to use a technique or software that he didn't specifically train on since he doesn't have a good foundation to abstract from. It would be more appropriate to call this person a technician.", ">\n\nThe purpose of calculators is to do the menial part of the work, not to solve whole processes. The engineer that learned with calculators likely knows how to select the right process to solve a problem, but uses the calculator to do the math faster and with fewer errors.", ">\n\nAt the college level, we’re not talking about tools to add and multiply. We’re talking about tools like Wolfram Alpha that do entire symbolic manipulations for you. If I took a calculus class and on all the assignments used Wolfram Alpha to find derivatives, do you think I would have learned anything?\nThat is what ChatGPT is doing for essays", ">\n\nThere are things called pencil and paper.", ">\n\nAs I said, this is the first line defense. However as I already commented to another user. I can simply hand copy ChatGPT output. Essentially not doing my own independent research, writing, coding, and studying.", ">\n\nWhy don't you consider that research? \nThe first source was the best. It's incredibly efficient research IMO.", ">\n\nThe idea of tool removal has always been flawed. From calculators to chat GPT and beyond. If your test is so flimsy that a simple tool invalidates it then the test is poorly built. Test shouldn't be simple busywork tasks, they should require thinking, problem solving, complex thought. If it's just a game of memorization that can be cheated by answers on a paper, you've built a bad test.\nover memorization (which is what our current school systems teach) is not only unhelpful, but also harmful. We live in an era of wikipedia being a reliable source, of vast access to tools both online and phsycial. We should be teaching kids they should do the work but with the help of those tools, not despite them.\nThe main issue with your argument is that based on what you've said, i can assume you think the current school system is a good one but so many studies have shown that at least here in the US, the school systems are some of the worst in the world. It's this memorize, ignore tools, singular focus mentality that plays such a big role.\nIf we were more creative with education, incorporating tool utilization into the learning process, we'd likely have a major improvement to our educational successes. I could go on about how the education system prefers certain kinds of students over others, and how many students are left behind simply because they don't learn like other kids and are therefore punished, but I won't. All I'll say is that more restrictions on how and what kids learn isn't going to help them learn more or better.\nand in 15 years when chat GPT is a part of daily life in every single company on the planet in some way or another (which I'm beyond certain it will be), kids who were taught how to properly utilize it will have just such a huge advantage in the workforce over those who weren't", ">\n\nRather than attempt to find ways to prevent new technology from interfering with existing pedagogy, shouldn't we review and revise pedagogy as new technology develops? \nIf a chat AI program can write these things, what is the point of having humans repeatedly do the same work? We don't expect people to use an abacus when doing math, or limit their research to what's in the library card catalogue, or require printed paper publications as essay resources; we adapted to the calculator, and to the internet and search engines. So too should we adapt to things like ChatGPT, not by trying to pretend it doesn't exist, but by finding ways to incorporate it into a more holistic approach to learning.\nRather than chain kids to an airgapped room on school grounds outside of school hours to do homework that's of dubious educational value in the first place, we should take this as an opportunity to refocus schooling on in-class engagement and direct instruction. ChatGPT and programs like it are showing us yet another thing we as humans can outsource to our technology, so why struggle to do things in a more difficult and inefficient way?", ">\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\nIn addition, AI is only as good as the data it is fed. You must still be able to do the work on your own to analyze when the AI is giving valid outputs (garbage in, garbage out). This is especially true, when AI runs the risks of being owned or operated by those with a specific agenda. Can you imagine the trouble that would result if people relied on AI to determine who to vote for, but someone was able to pay the operators to have the AI promote them?\nRelying on AI to do our work for us is a distillation of an appeal to authority fallacy on a large scale (if the AI says it, it must be true).", ">\n\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\n\nThis is something I worry about A LOT when it comes to AI. Our collective understanding of the subjects that we usually classify as \"the humanities\" is constantly evolving as we learn more, and especially as a more diverse set of people are allowed to study, research and put forth opinions and arguments.\nImagine if students were outsourcing all their history, psychology, sociology and philosophy homework to a chatbot with a 1950s understanding of those subjects.\nImagine doctors outsourcing psych patient diagnoses to a chatbot with the same understanding.\nOn an arguably less \"serious\" but still critically important moral and political topic, imagine if all/most videogame art was outsourced to an AI engine with a 1990s sensibility for female characters. Same for all kinds of representation and diversity.\nHow about politics and political science in general... ha!\nEtc, etc etc.\nIt is NOT the case that we already have discovered all the true answers to the big questions, and we can merely turn to a \"knowledge calculator\" like ChatGPT to spit out the truth.\nEven if AI can pretty accurately reflect the discourse of the day, as it is currently understood and accepted, our collective knowledge and culture will stagnate if we do not actively participate in developing it, and we will all pay the price for that.", ">\n\nThese are all moralistic arguments that ultimately don’t mean anything.", ">\n\nI would say they are more epistemic arguments, which do matter greatly in the context of education (which is what the op was referring to).", ">\n\nAre any of these things mentioned actually realistic concerns? Someone is going to train an AI bot to generate 90s female art characters with big tits?\nNo. Lol and even if someone did, who cares?", ">\n\nConsidering how many people believe obviously fake stories that have no supporting evidence (and in spite of contrary evidence), yes, I believe they are very real concerns.\nIf an AI says we should use Brawndo in farming because its got what plants crave (electrolytes), we should probably be able to justify it with reasoning beyond \"the AI says so.\"", ">\n\nWho is suggesting we do anything “just because an AI said so”? \nDo you read books and think everything in it is true “because the book says so”?", ">\n\nHow do you determine if what the book/ai said is false?\nYou would typically do it through a process of research and discovery.\nPeoples' ability to do research and discovery will be greatly diminished if we rely on AI to do those things for us (which is what the previous posters were suggesting).\nTherefore, reliance on AI will lead to us losing the ability to discern if the results of what the AI is saying is correct.", ">\n\nWhat? Lol that doesn’t make any sense at all. \nIt is not like if we use AI then all previous knowledge is simply forgotten or lost. It’s all still there.", ">\n\nForcing homework at school makes that \"not homework\", and this approach has never worked. You cant reject change, it never works. Every time there has been a game changing event, people adapted. Those who tried to reject change disappeared. Horse carriages disappeared from roads because something else replaced it. Some people supposedly rejected progress, but they are lying to themselves, they still use modern tech or services at some point.\nAnyway, the change is here, and it made essays irrelevant. Time to find another way to test people skills. \nGive it a little time though. ChatGPT costs a ginormous amount of money to run and will not stay free for long either.", ">\n\nIt's not just ChatGPT, the actual innovation is not the interface but lies in algorithms that can recreate natural language of similar quality with smaller data samples. There are also OpenSource datasets like ThePile, etc. so even if OpenAI moves to a paid model (and they will, quickly. You can already sign up to be first in line for the API), there will be other free providers.", ">\n\nHaving coded AIs, I disagree. ChatGPT is a regular trained AI. The novelty is the scale of the operation, and the fact there is a public API.\nNo one ever spent that much money on resources to run and train an AI publicly. I am pretty sure google has done something similar with user data sets to make their search engine and general ecosystem.\nI wish there was a way to have algorithms working with smaller data sets and produce similar results, but it kind of does not work that way.", ">\n\nThere are already tools to identify ChatGPT generated texts. Such tools will improve as another use of literally the same technology.\nJust as teachers submit essays for identifying plagiarism, teachers will submit essays for identifying AI-generated text. \nFurther, a focus could change from grading students on what they know to grading students' ability to ask meaningful, content-based questions about the subject. After all, knowing facts isn't particularly valuable as a skill. Integrating facts and discovering valuable questions is still something that remains a uniquely human skill. And is where people will continue to add value as AI becomes more advanced.", ">\n\nStudents have always been able to 'cheat' on work done outside the classroom, by copying or somehow getting others to do their work for them, even before the internet. Yes with more advanced modern technology it is easier but this has always been a concern. \nAs regular learning environments like supervised classrooms are already 'quarantined' in the way you descibe you are fundementally just suggesting an increase in learning hours as a supplement to homework. This has been suggested by many for various reasons but it would overall cuase more issues than it fixes. It increases work load on teachers and administrators, stretching already thin educational budgets, and forces increased mental strain on children. It would limit their ability to do other recreational and out of ciriculum activities. This would be disruptive and controlling when the quantity of teaching and learning time that children recive is already considered sufficiant for a good education.", ">\n\nHell the only thing stopping me from using ChatGPT regularly for my work now is that it's always at capacity.", ">\n\nApply tests that are hand written, doesnt matter how a person obtains the knowledge, actually learning the subject is most important thing.", ">\n\nThere is no amount of ChatGPT that could influence a good old oral exam where the teacher evaluates the understanding via a little chat.", ">\n\nSo tired of this view. We shouldn’t be fighting technology. Teach kids to use the resources they have to find answers. It’s such a waste of 12 years of school, teaching kids to memorize facts and follow rules. \nInstead, every test should be open book and reward the best answers. Ask the kids to show their work or explain their thought process so we reward understanding of a topic rather than memorization of steps or text.", ">\n\n20 years ago, there were already homework communities and learn groups. Even from the publishers of school books and with free access to tutors. Ok, they didnt do the final homework for me, but gave me a great starting point.\nBeing the kid who transcribes a wiki page was already stupid back then when others could call you out:\nBut I guess the actual problem is lack of digital literacy with teachers, they're always 5-10 years behind.", ">\n\nIf you are testing skills that can be done by free tools on the internet, then you are testing irrelevant skills.\nThe best way to educate kids is to test for skills they need, not skills they objectively don't.\nI was able to witness a couple of universities adapt to tests during quarantine, and follow reports on how the new methods would be used going forward.\nThe results where thus:\nMass offline testing is incredibly cost efficient (one examiner per ~300 students), but the tests results are a poor indicator of real world performance.\nOne to One testing is incredibly expensive, but can, when done right, test actual understanding and performance.\nBoth will be useful, of course. Mass testing is most useful when used in a way that students aren't incentivized to cheat, such as when framed as practice.", ">\n\nOne of the upsides of needing to prevent this kind of tech from cheating assignments is that teachers should focus on having students be able to do their homework at school. (As a former teacher, we were trying to do this already- no more than 15 min of homework per class). \nI dont think we need to do quite what you say. We just need to limit outside electronics and have in-person classrooms or computer labs with programs designed to be AI-proof. \nI have ALWAYS believed that cell phones/internet watches should be stored in school lockers (at most) and never allowed anywhere else on campus during the school day. If anyone needs to contact the students they contact the desk who relays their message/other need. Many schools already do this.", ">\n\n∆\nI agree with this. It would help.", ">\n\nThank you!", ">\n\nThat is utterly pointless.\nThere is no reason to limit the available tools.\nThis just reminds me of the entire \"you won't have a calculator wherever you go\" argument.\nSchool should instead put a focus on responsibly using available tools.", ">\n\nAnd if students choose to use them irresponsibly, what should schools do?\nAnd can you please define what constitutes responsible use? Because despite knowing about plagiarism, people still copy and paste from the internet. Perfect abstinence is easier than perfect moderation after all.", ">\n\nJust return to hand written essays and have more oral exams.", ">\n\n∆l\nActually of all comments having oral exams compliments my post and I agree with you. Enjoy the delta.", ">\n\nIn a Faraday cage.", ">\n\nIf children can just generate work with ChatGPT, it simply shows that children are not being taught anything valuable. (Once ChatGPT responses can be generated in almost unlimited amounts at very low cost, it necessarily means those responses are of low value)\nInstead shouldn't we be teaching children to provide more valuable outcomes that ChatGPT can't replicate?", ">\n\nBeing able to do on your own what ChatGPT does with access to an immense amount of data and processing power is valuable. The actual writing isn't valuable, obviously, but it would be silly to expect it to be. It's just a side effect of practice, you spend time making things of little or no value to build up the skills you'll need to make something that actually matters. That's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\nI think you'd be hard pressed to teach a class of children to outperform ChatGPT in writing without ever asking them to write something that could also be done via AI. What would that even look like?", ">\n\n\nThat's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\n\nIt is a problem. That is why I hated math class until 2nd year of university.", ">\n\nDid you start discovering novel math results in your second year of university, or was that just the point at which you first encountered problems you found interesting, despite the fact that someone else had already solved them before? Thinking back the class you didn't hate, do you think it should be removed if someone can construct an AI to give all the answers you gave?", ">\n\nThis is only a method for evaluating students, it doesn't do anything to educate them.\nChatgpt is potentially a great tool for education but trying to find complex ways around it for homework is pointless. When testing fact retention is required using school/university computers with no web browsing makes sense. For any other test or situation it's a tool that might be used.", ">\n\nI understand OPs concern. That said, I do not think you can create true quarantine for a multitude of reasons. \nThe biggest one is probably time. I worked through high school and university. Because I lived in the middle of nowhere it was about a 30 min drive to high school and then an hour to uni. Having to stay at these quarantine zones to complete assignments would have been hell on my schedule, car, and wallet. \nYou said it yourself, if someone is going to cheat, they will cheat. If I had to do the work in a quarantine zone, what exactly stops me from doing the actual work on my computer at home, printing it all out, and then just writing that into the computer at the quarantine zone? Unless you want to try having students write an entire essay in their hour long class? There has to be a point where they go home and then this falls apart.", ">\n\nThere are already lots of ways to cheat in homework and mostly our steps to deal with that amount to the honour system, and by university level, automated plagiarism detection (which can be quite easily avoided). The point you \"won't argue\" that people will cheat if given the opportunity is probably the actual crux of what's wrong with your suggestion and the part that needs a big [citation needed]. Concluding that the majority of people are fundamentally dishonest is a big assumption to handwave away. \nIf you want an education, cheating is stupid. Ultimately you might get a paper qualification out of it but you'll have actually learned nothing - you won't hold up long against someone who has done it properly when you actually have to apply the skills. Or if you do, then the assignments weren't that crucial to the learning in the first place.", ">\n\nMany of the things I learned in school were largely irrelevant. I couldn't use a calculator to do long division. After I passed those early elementary school years I never did long division again. I wouldn't even argue learning the long division algo is mandatory. It's nice to have learnt it I guess, but I spent way too many hours on it. I can see learning fundamentals of essay writing, etc, are great, but why can't we just evolve to learn more effective things in life? ChatGPT should be used as a tool, not viewed as a detriment.", ">\n\nIt'd suggest that the best way to educate them is to embrace ChatGBT and teach them to use it well. Your method is a bit like teaching kids to do math without calculators or accounting without excel or financial software. There is some value, but it runs out very quickly and you're at a social and competetive disadvantage for taking some archane principled approach to education that is more of a defense of \"how we used to do it\".\nI'm old enough to remember when using a word processor was sometime forbidden for reasons of fairness - that seems entirely disconnected now from doing good work and it's almost hard to envision the thought process of those who thought everything should be hand written for students. \nIsn't the kid who is amazing at utilizing tools like ChatGBT going to do much better in the world than the one who does not? Your idea of \"proper education\" would easily regress back to needing to do all subjects scrawled in dirt with sticks and grunted in non-standardized language.", ">\n\nOR, chatgpt will be a great boon to the entire education system:\nIncreased accessibility: ChatGPT and other AI-powered systems can provide education to individuals who otherwise would not have access to it, due to geographical, financial, or other barriers.\n\nPersonalized learning: ChatGPT can provide personalized education experiences based on each student's strengths, weaknesses, and learning style.\n\n24/7 availability: ChatGPT can operate 24/7, providing students with access to education at any time, anywhere, which can be especially beneficial for those with demanding schedules or for individuals in remote areas.\n\nScalability: ChatGPT can provide education to a large number of students simultaneously, which could help to address the shortage of teachers and resources in some areas.\n\nCost-effectiveness: ChatGPT can be a more cost-effective option for providing education compared to traditional methods, as it does not require physical classrooms or teachers.\n\nImproved student engagement: ChatGPT can provide interactive, engaging learning experiences that can hold students' attention and foster deeper learning.\n\n--Source: ChatGPT", ">\n\nThere a lots of places where texts and exams are “open book”. The questions have to be written differently, and the point is that you’re not testing someone’s ability to memorize, but rather their ability to understand. This is a more difficult test to write, so in theory AI could force education to improve since everyone would a virtual tutor with them at all times.", ">\n\nI'm a teacher and I've been thinking a lot about this the last couple months. Changes within the education system/curriculum/syllabus/retraining of teachers will take far too long to keep up with the ease of access to, and success of, chatgpt and AI in general. \nThe only solution moving forward both short and long term is to embrace it, there is no stopping it now anyway and if we don't all want to be out of a job in 5 years we need to - \n- demonstrate feasible/moral/ethical use of such tools\n- create more opportunities for collaborative learning/hands-on/problem solving tasks and ones that increase communication skills between peers. \nHow this applies to each individual, specific task will vary and must require a lot of creativity and trial and error, but I think relying too heavily on your department of education to handle this (or most 'boots on the ground' problems) will ultimately only degrade a students experience and ability for learning.", ">\n\nI'm with you on what you're trying to accomplish. I just don't know that it's the \"best\" way. \nFor instance, how is homework performed in school superior to trusting the kids to learn the material, which would then be tested by oral exam? And yes, I do believe that asking a student to verbally explain a topic is a really good way to gauge mastery.", ">\n\nThere is not a hope in hell that we'll go back to hand written stuff. That's not how technology works. As the music companies. There are better ways to show you know a subject, for sure, than the current out of-date ones. That's for sure. Have you ever taken an on-line exam?", ">\n\nI argue to let them use chatGPT as it will be their future. This is similar to my generations \"you'll never walk around with a calculator so learn math.\" The future children will grow into a society where work means utilizing AI tech to help them thrive. If chatGPT helps them write an essay, and it's good, it means they're using resources. I agree, however, that we should supplement this with actual reading and writing.", ">\n\nI would argue that most of time that ChatGPT and similar technologies is going to be an issue is in 8-12 grade and college.\nThis technology is not going away, and it's only going to improve. Personally I would treat it like calculators, audio books and spell check.\nTech kids how to use the technology properly. Sure it's somewhat handy to calculate numbers in your head, but having the ability to do math in your head does not give you much of an advantage in today's world and not being able to doesn't hurt you much. But it's still critical to know formulas and how to peace together algebraic statements and word problems. \nKnowing how to spell properly is less important than knowing proper word usage - most times you're writing something it can be spell-checked in real time. Sure it's \"terrible that today's kids...\" don't know how to spell... but it's not going to affect their career. \nEnter ChatGPT - same thing. Should I spend the time to write a white paper on the changing advertising landscape to alert my boss about the a potential seismic shift in advertising revenue, or should I ask ChatGPT to write it? As a user I have to understand its limits and potential copywrite issues, but even more importantly how to verify that what it writes is correct and targeting the right audience. Is data from before 2020 going to be recent and accurate enough for my thesis? How do I supplement the discussion with real-world data? \nThis is our new reality. We should be learning how to use the tools properly, not trying to figure out to lock it down (which frankly makes as much sense as locking down the use of calculators or spell check).", ">\n\nI think there are already apps in place that are able to detect AI generated text (Read this article).\nAlso, I think a better method would be to simply have a database of ChatGPT (could be encrypted) generated text and make it available to already existing software that is use to detect plagiarism (this is just an exemple amongst many)", ">\n\nFrankly I don’t think high schoolers and below should be given homework or tests at all. One learns magnitudes better through exploration as opposed to mindless repetition. Engage with these kids intellectually, make them free thinking Athenians, not bags of knowledge of which they have no idea how to use.\nDoes it not surprise anyone that we train people for over a decade in intellect yet hardly have any intellectuals?", ">\n\nI would argue that society would be better off spending resources on teaching children how to use this tool effectively. Knowing how to get the right answer is what matters in this world.", ">\n\nThen answer this: Well why learn math at all? Seriously.\nWhy learn he concept of subtraction let alone division? I could and society has argued that with the advent of digital calculators. \nYet we learn it. \nLater we use calculators to take the mundane and already known processes to the next level. We abstract away the mundane. \nAs a EE having worked and am working on products you may be using right now to read this, when I develop new silicon and chips I don’t break out Karnaugh maps and lay down circuit using a T square and stencils of gates. But I sure the hell know what I’m doing and expect the tools to do for me. \nTeaching fundamentals of reading, writing, arithmetic, essays, research are just that fundamental.", ">\n\nI’d argue that the vast majority don’t need anything beyond basic math anyways. \nGo ask the average adult if they know the quadratic equation and what it means and you’d probably be disappointed.", ">\n\nChatGPT is here to stay, you'd better advocate for teaching people how to make the most of it and use it wisely instead of pretending it doesn't exist.\nOne of my favourite teachers always told students to use the best tools there are.", ">\n\nI think it depends completely on the topic. In my field of study, it’s fairly easy to come up with term paper assignments that the bot would be useless for. \nLooking back at the paper I wrote last year, I don’t see how any current bot could have helped, as it isn’t able to read or summarize specific sources (yet?).\nAn example of the type of assignments we get is “Discuss the role of state capacity in x and x conflict in light of (specific research paper)‘s dimensions of state capacity - do your findings confirm the findings of (authors), why or why not?\nThis way of combining literature made it difficult even for me to be on top of it, as there were no sources that had attempted this exact combination - it has to be original. \nAlso, I find it’s the best way to learn, because you have to rely on your own judgement and there are no shortcuts, even asking the professor was unhelpful as he wasn’t too familiar with the details.", ">\n\nThis is not the best way.", ">\n\n\nThese homework rooms would have Internet connected computers for use but access to ChatGPT would be filtered and blocked.\n\nThis wouldn't be feasible, there's far too many roundabout ways to still access ChatGPT. Security measures like domain filtering are just unproductive games of whack-a-mole. \nEdit: removed all the other stuff I wrote, as those points have already been mentioned in previous top-level comments.", ">\n\nHomework shouldn’t be the go-to method of “education” to begin with. Imo Universities should focus on the integral part of education: the lectures. Tools like chatgpt can help student who are actually interested in a subject to learn more easily about it, but whether students actually learn anything or not from a class won’t change regardless of if work is authentic or copied from an AI\nSource: I’m a college student and have had experience in both supervised environments where we had to do work without the use of computers/phones and solely-online environments where many students cheated", ">\n\nWhile this could work, it is not necessarily the best way in terms of accessibility and of learning in general. \nFirst, students with ADHD and certain other conditions may not necessarily be the able to be productive at all times, or at the specific time they have to work on those computers, especially if those computers are not in an environment ideal to that specific person. It would also not be very feasible to give students enough time on these computers to complete the bigger assignments and essays. \nSecond, while ChatGPT is quite advanced, it simply works by looking at language patterns and often gets factual details incorrect. For example, with bigger coding problems, it tries to import modules that do not exist or call on functions that it has not defined. In literature, it cannot analyze texts on much more than a surface level. I will admit it can use secondary sources for textual analysis, however, it is unable to come up with a clear thesis on its own. \nAdditionally, take-home tests can be just as easily cheated on using a normal Google search, and usually test thinking skills rather than understanding and knowledge. \nFinally, essay-writing and other types of assignments are generally not ideal for learning as they are only one type of skill, and university professors are recognizing this. Not only do they not work for all learning styles, but they are only used so commonly because of tradition. University professors are structuring assignments around ways that are innovative enough that ChatGPT is unable to work on them. Along with requiring specific readings which the AI might not have access to, and citing of all sources (which has always been a requirement that the AI might trip up on), they are also going away from the traditional essay format into others. For example, I am studying literature, a relatively essay-heavy field, and in my past few courses I have been asked to analyze comics (which the AI cannot read), edit other people’s essays and articles (from past courses), create a mock syllabus or lesson plan with justifications for each reading, and create annotated bibliographies as a stepping stone to an essay. All of these not only require different skills and encourage different types of learning and research but are quite difficult for an AI to do. \nAll in all, while your suggestion is great, the very nature of the AI and the fact that it exists at all is perhaps a sign that the best course of action is to rework the way we think about evaluation. After all, if an evaluation is such that an AI can complete it without the ability to actually think (it works by using observed language patterns), then perhaps the evaluation is not ideal.", ">\n\nI bet teachers and people thought the same thing about calculators when they came out or 1990s internet. AI bots like chat GPT are just a tool.", ">\n\nAll this effectively does is train kids to accomplish goals of a type that do not exist in the real world in a situation they will never realistically encounter. A better goal is adjusting testing criteria to account for this.\nThere might be very specific sets of knowledge for which rote memorization is appropriate, and for those, the air gapped testing may be appropriate. But I believe those are the exception rather than the rule. By and large, teaching kids to effectively utilize the tools that will be available to them is what we should be doing.", ">\n\nImagine learning where the only books are hand written.\nThe printing press took out a huge amount of repetitive labor in the learning process.\nAI/ChatGPT stands a good chance of removing a huge amount knowledge labor which stands between an idea and the end product. Learning to use the AI to best effect the Idea->End Product Chain is more important than worrying about memorizing formulae we will likely never need to remember. \nThe effort to restrict ChatGPT is just education system worrying about their Cheese Being Moved.", ">\n\nThis just doesn't make any sense to me. You're arguing that we shouldn't allow students to use tools they would have at their disposal in a real working environment, and for what? Why wouldn't you want students to use every tool at their disposal? How exactly is handicapping them helping them to understand the coursework?\nA much better approach would be to fundamentally alter how we teach to better prepare them for the workforce. Encouraging collaboration and creative problem solving skills is much more practical and effective.", ">\n\nChatGPT may pass the Bar, but I highly doubt it will replace lawyers or other professionals. \nThe whole point of credentialing is to drive accountability. Anyone can study the law and cite precedent without a law degree. Actually representing a client in a court of law requires oversight and knowledge. ChatGPT isn't perfect - it will make mistakes from time to time. So who is responsible when it makes a mistake? When is a client (who is not familiar with the law) supposed to know that a mistake has been made on their behalf? For this reason, until ChatGPT is literally perfect you're always going to need a credentialed professional to review the output.\nFor the record, I think ChatGPT is wonderful. But it's a tool that people will use, not a full-fledged replacement for professionals. My employer (a Fortune 500 company) has already rejected its use for internal projects. IT has the website blocked.", ">\n\nThe kids that are educated without its use will fall behind in business when faced with kids that are using it to its fullest extent.\nYou've successfully made an argument for people to succeed in a test that is worthless in the real world. Its parameters don't match.", ">\n\nThe best way to educate children is to teach them skills and strategies that will actually serve them in the workplace of the future. \nChatGPT already has reached the point of replacing humans (See Buzzfeed news). If ChatGPT can take the test or do the homework then what value is that education going to be to these students? Especially older students will quickly see rote memorization as a waste of time and so yes they probably will cheat if they have the opportunity. Trying to force these things to be “learned” and prove that knowledge by brute force banning things is going to be a costly uphill battle.", ">\n\nWhat if we modify how essays are written by students, by asking them to include citations (which is something ChatGPT can’t do)?\nWe can’t stop new tools from making old methods obsolete. But we can focus on enhancing critical thinking of students in a stepwise manner. When a new tool is created, think about how you can adapt rather than resist it.", ">\n\nWhy not just train an ai to spot ai written papers?", ">\n\nWhat about gradually putting more emphasis on oral assignments?", ">\n\nEverything you said makes perfect sense...IF the goal was to teach children simply how to write the perfect standard essay. But that is a very limited way of viewing education and what its real goal is. The real goal of education is to teach children how to think. To come up with the right questions, not just the right answers. In a world where a \"good enough\" essay on literally anything can be conjured as if by magic by a machine, what's the actual value of that exercise now? For a very long time teachers have used the essay as a way to evaluate how a person thinks. Now that a machine can write it for you, we need new ways to evaluate how students think. That's the real task we are facing. Fuck the essay, just like we ditched the slide rule for calculators and later computers, etc. Tools change but the real game remains the same: Think for yourself!", ">\n\nI'd say the best way would be to accept the reality of changing technology and reevaluating the approach we have towards education as a whole.\nGranted, I'd say that's only one half of the picture: reassessing how we conceive if jobs and labour in the face of increasing automation goes along with that, and I think neither really works without the other.\nBottom line is that human labour is more and more obsolete as time goes on, so human jobs will be less and less in demand (I'd argue moving away from a capitalistic system is the right call, but even if you don't, automation is still an incentive).\nSince a large part of the incentive of our current education system is \"prepare you for a job\" I think the whole thing is going to fall short in light of these kinds of systems developing.\nTheres lots of people now who pursue knowledge as a project of passion, rather than a means to an end, and I think moving to a system that supports and encourages that kind of ambition is the way to go.", ">\n\nI disagree. We should learn to use the tools we have efficiently. Otherwise you are not learning for your career but for some professors ego", ">\n\nThat’s not “education in the era of ChatGPT.” That’s education in the era before ChatGPT while we figure out what the world with ChatGPT will look like so we have some idea of what to do with it.\nThat’s also not “educating,” that’s just “assessment.” Assessment is simply a measuring system for education. As long as you think of the acquisition of knowledge and skill as requiring knowledge regurgitation and skill performance in isolation and divorced from context/individualized, then you’re going to end up at necessitating a kind of geofenced, Luddite assessment model. The training itself predicates the assessment method. How we assess is defined by how we teach, and vice versa.\nThe best assessment method to gauge understanding is, and always has been, conversation.\nAll we need to do is pair assessment with regular conversation between qualified teacher and student to determine if personal comprehension is present. Not an interview, not an interrogation — conversation. Problem solving performance contexts are also great revealer of internalized knowledge and skill.\nChatGPT is a relative nonissue if your approach to assessment is at all human.\nIt’s only a problem when you’re trying to mechanize and dehumanized education. “Rigorous” does not mean “mechanical.” We are going to have to trust the professional, knowledge- and skill-assessing judgements of humans who already know and can do.\nEducation reverts to having more emphasis on apprenticeship and mentorship models, where the relationship itself is part of the learning process. \n(The “accountability!” cranks are gonna love that…)", ">\n\nI have a strong suspicion that discussions like this, while very interesting, will be obsolete long before any changes can actually be implemented in schools. In fact, I'm pretty sure schools will be gone entirely in the near future.\nAs of right now, you can be taught almost any subject by an exceptionally well-spoken, fast and infinitely patient teacher called GPT to a university level, if not higher. Try it right now - go ask GPT to explain the political situation that allowed Alexander the Great to conquer Persia, or ask it to explain the raytracing algorithm. If there's a part you don't understand, ask it to clarify. You'll be amazed how accessible it makes advanced topics.\nNow, how long before we have VR software with a realistic-looking AI teacher, with an AI-generated voice, who can do the same thing, but respond to students' voices and use body language and visual demonstrations? Five years?\nHow long after that before this tech is cheap, and of such high quality that sending your kids to school will be a worse education?\nNow in, say, 20 years, we could have an AI system that takes a DNA sample, analyses a students genotype to understand what subjects they will be naturally good at, what education approaches will be most successful, and continuously improves its model of the student's behavior by observing them. It crafts a decades-long education journey tailored to the individual, and accompanies them the entire way.\nTeachers, as far as they've existed so far, don't have a chance.", ">\n\nAre you trying to test someone or teach them?\nIf the latter, why do you care about cheating? This reminds me of the ol' teachers who used to restrict calculators because \"you won't always have a calculator with you.\"", ">\n\nYou forget that for 99% of homework students could just copy each other's work. Having the answers out in the world accessible is not a new problem. You just make homework a small part of the grades and you make sure students understand it's important to actually do it or they won't do well on the tests.", ">\n\nThere are so many people that can’t do the basic math examples you mentioned somewhere and they went to school at a time when there were no calculators.\nOn the other hand I was allowed to use calculators in school pretty much the moment I left elementary school and I am really quite good at math even without assistance.\nTool usage is one of humanities key features and trying to work against it instead of finding ways to incorporate new technology into school and life seems backwards.", ">\n\nIronically the teacher will have to use an AI to decipher the \"hand written\" assignments.", ">\n\nYou can't force people to learn.", ">\n\nWhat about teaching how to think rather than how to memorize? Just a thought 💭", ">\n\nThey need to get rid of homework, and have students do their work while they're at school. It's awful, they just pile it on, even if a class only has a little homework that day, there's like 6 or 7 classes so it's a nightmare for students. Seems like the only way to prevent cheating is have them do work in class, so I hope for the students sake, they do that.", ">\n\nI’ll throw my idea into the ring, though we’re still a few years off from this technology:\nWe should have students interact with AI tutors that can prompt them questions and point out details. Then they can collaborate on assignments, and the AI tutor can give feedback and suggest snippets. The AI can evaluate their work and their engagement with the material.", ">\n\nOne of Transformers main applications is in search. Ie you get a set of embeddings you can compare the pairwise distances between embedding and get a list of scores that tell you which embeddings are most similar to the input. \nEssentially tools like google are made to reduce the search space for a given query collect likely links and then rerank the most likely results. \nChatgpt basically does this in a more direct way of searching through a space of potential responses. Basically trained on a task to predict next token given the previous tokens or fill in a mask\nTransformers permeate everything students use from the recommendation algorithms on TikTok Facebook, YouTube to search systems in google. \nIn my opinion students should absolutely not be taught to fear these tools tho I do agree they be tested in constrained environments to challenge them. Current systems should not be used to learn unless you have a clear understanding and are willing to check every word and check your reasoning. Future systems will be much better though so this problem isn’t going anywhere. \nIf anything there should be a push to make these ideas more interpretable to a younger audience and give them the tools to navigate an increasingly complex market of ideas. They should be aware of the limitations and how when they use a piece of software their actions and the actions of those around them are influencing what they see next. \nIt should be used and taught with rigor. \nIt’s programming 2.0", ">\n\nDude no; \nChatGPT is the computer. \nDo you want to be the education system that banned the computer and then wondered why all the other education systems output modern tech workers, while your education system kept outputting chimney sweeps and car factory workers?", ">\n\nHW only exists to make students practice, and generally is worth less than 20% of the grade in a class. If a student chooses to use chat GPT to bypass it then that’s the student’s loss.\nUltimately exams are what schools use to evaluate a students knowledge and I don’t think that’s going to change anytime soon", ">\n\nThere are already programs that check if something was written by an AI or not. Also no student I know actually uses chatGPT for major assignments because chatGPT doesn’t know every text to ever be published so it doesn’t understand the context, and most of the time will just bullshit an answer that’s incorrect.\nEveryone I know that uses chatGPT for school do so for either for assignments so small and simple that it doesn’t make sense to quarantine, or they use it as a more advanced google that can answer questions more accurately than a search engine could, essentially just saving time.\n(most) students are using chatGPT largely as a productivity and time management tool rather than to cheat.", ">\n\nThis is like saying “in the age of calculators, the only way to ensure kids learn maths is to ban calculators in school”. If looked at correctly, chatgpt is an effect multiplier, learning just has to be rejigged to have kids learn to do things that they can’t simply ask chatgpt to do for them.", ">\n\nLess course work and more exams is the future in a world with chatGPT.", ">\n\nChatGPT will be a big no issue soon. I work in a research field and this was something we worried about last year. As of now there are multiple tools and even more being developed that catch the use of ChatGPT. There has been research published that list ChatGPT as a co-author, but for most research, and use by students, it will simply be forbidden and will easily be caught as well. The program does well but it has a particular style that can be caught. Again it will be a non-issue soon.", ">\n\nThis is like forbidding people to use a calculator because it can give you the result instant. A better way is to teach them how to use the calculator, because its here now and won't go away. Same with GPT. Children can learn way better/faster with ChatGPD if used correctly. Imaging having a private teacher for free which helps you learning every time of the day.", ">\n\nLet me ask you this. If ChatGPT could complete a students whole assignment, what would that student have learned from doing that assignment on their own that won’t simply be replaced with ChatGPT by a employer in the future?\nEven if ChatGPT doesn’t replace workers for a decade, why teach students skills that will inevitably be replaced and leave said students jobless in a decade?\nChatGPT won’t only be used in the workforce either. Linus Tech Tips has a video showing how ChatGPT can help people learn new skills and do troubleshooting on their own. If I remember correctly, he manages to completely build a pc by only strictly following what ChatGPT tells him to. It even managed to suggest the best parts for that computers specific use case. It was nowhere near perfect, but in the future it will get there.\nSince ChatGPT is such a useful tool in the workforce and at home, I think it’s crucial we teach students how to use it instead of banning them from it. Maybe students should be given a problem and tasked to use ChatGPT to find the solution or have students attempt to learn a new topic with ChatGPT. I’m not a teacher, I just thought of those examples of the top of my head. I’m sure qualified teachers could think of better assignments than me.\nI could see ChatGPT helping a mechanic diagnose an issue so the mechanic could spend more time fixing the problem rather than diagnosing and I can think of a few examples in other jobs as well where ChatGPT will help a worker be more efficient and save more time.\nI think, if anything, we’re setting students up for failure by not teaching them about these tools that will take over the workforce and help in everyday life.", ">\n\nYou’ll still have to pass a test. Relax.", ">\n\nIt “fairs” extremely well? Maybe some additional time spent observing ChatGPT could actually benefit some", ">\n\nThere’s just no way you can use ChatGPT to do all of your work for you and be successful at any moderately high level of academic pursuit. Not without learning the material yourself, and if you’ve done that, I don’t think it matters so much whether you used chatGPT and for what along the way.\nFrankly if you start our using chatGPT early in school, you won’t even be able to ask the right questions in the right way and include the necessary refinements to do more complex and demanding assignments down the road. \nAlso, tests are still a thing aren’t they? ChatGPT doesn’t help you perform in person in a monitored environment - not in a way that would allow you to skip learning the material. I don’t really get this aspect of your cmv. As long as tests don’t allow access to ChatGPT, anyone who didn’t learn the material is going to be exposed..", ">\n\nThere are already programs that detect ChatGPT writing.", ">\n\nThe children who want to cheat will always find a way to do so. It doesn’t matter how much you do to restrict it, it’ll just make them find new means of doing so. \nSource: I did GCSE’s in the UK, AP in the US. Trust, kids will cheat even in sterile environments. Especially if it’s a huge room and there are few moderators. A lot of us are scared of repercussions but those who aren’t won’t let anything stand in there way—region and proctoring be damned.", ">\n\nI require them to complete an outline first. Outline must be submitted to me before I take the essay. Google doc lets you see that they write it and when each sentence was written. It’s helped.", ">\n\nCHATGPT is a tool, and in some applications (not all), it can help students do their homework. Consider the calculator. Do students not need to learn formulas and critical thinking just because they can punch numbers into calculators?\nNo, math is still a skill that is valuable if for no other reason then because it trains your brain to solve problems.\nOne of the things that surprises me is that ChatGPT can use words and explain things to students even when a teacher is not available or when there isn’t one. we should consider this an educational opportunity rather than a disadvantage.\nThere are so many amazing things we humans can do when we simply have tools to help us. ChatGPT is no different.", ">\n\nYou can’t force people to live in the past. Chat GPT is here to stay. Education now needs to focus on teaching people how to use AI, and how to develop a skill that can’t be replaced by AI.", ">\n\nHow about getting students engaged in what they’re learning and excited to learn. Find what they’re good at and double down on it. Don’t make school a fucking quarantine bubble. Socialize, allow them to teach and learn from each other. Replace the potential for cheating with collaboration assignments in person. “Children will cheat if given the opportunity” is such horse shit. If somebody doesn’t know or wasn’t taught something well then yea they’re gonna look to get it right so they can obtain approval. How about teaching them so they won’t cheat??", ">\n\nThats not it. I don’t have an answer for you, but thats not it.", ">\n\nHow about just have the kids do a presentation on \"their\" report with Q&A at the end. They'll have no choice but to know the info.... which is the point.", ">\n\nWell, making an AI that detects if something was made by an AI shouldnt be hard", ">\n\nI wonder if anyone has tried training a machine to look at assignments and give a confidence interval of the assignment being either human or machine in origin.", ">\n\nYeah we call that stuff examns...", ">\n\nThe problem with your suggested approach is that it just reinforces the current failures of the education system. It doesn't actually teach us the skills that you will be able to use in the field. \n\nYou can look up formulas for physics and you can double check online for any coding questions. Chat gpt is a tool and I think forbidding students from using it will just be a disservice to them and everyone in the future. It's not going to go away any time soon so how about instead of teaching children to cheat more effectively, we teach them how to use chat gpt to its full potential? It can speed up so many tasks to such a degree that students will be able to recieve more advanced education in the time that was saved by using chat gpt", ">\n\nI mean, there are plenty of good reasons already said, but wouldn't it just be easy to cheat. You get home, ask Chat.gpt for a result, print it out. Bring it with you to the school quarantine, copy it into the computer. (Unless you would like a full strip search of the students upon entering, which is wrong in so many ways)", ">\n\nI could use this in my program all I wanted and pass courses with perfect scores, and at the end of my degree I’d have a licensure exam that I’d fail cause I didn’t learn anything.", ">\n\nGreat idea! While let's just ignore the real world and keep our heads in the sand. Let's also get rid of computers and ink pens and go back to stone and chisel!", ">\n\nInstead of asking students to write ...ask them to spot the mistakes and correct the essays.\nThat requires way more knowledge and mastership." ]
> I think the problem lies deeper. Humans and especially children want to learn and understand. One of the most common words a 5 y/o uses is "why". "Why do airplanes fly? Why is the sun bright? Why can't I have candy? Why isn't the house collapsing? It is bigger than my sandcastle that fell over." And the education system should be ashamed of itself that it kills this curiosity and motivation of the children. I don't want to go too deep into possible solutions. Just one anecdote from myself: We had to produce an educational video. For that we got 20 hours time. We worked around 30, met at my apartment and filmed after a day off homeschooling. Nobody thought of cheating with chatgpt because we have the script our character. On the other hand: I should colour a heart now and I don't want to, so I don't do it. Everyone has their video and colouring schematics and we should encourage the prior to the latter, making the demand for cheating less important Also we sent around our homeworks all the time. The concept of homework isn't great at all	[ "/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^\| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.", ">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?", ">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.", ">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?", ">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.", ">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?", ">\n\nYou mean a grade?", ">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication", ">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.", ">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)", ">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.", ">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.", ">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.", ">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.", ">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?", ">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.", ">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.", ">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.", ">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.", ">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.", ">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.", ">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.", ">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.", ">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.", ">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.", ">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.", ">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.", ">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.", ">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use", ">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.", ">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.", ">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.", ">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.", ">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.", ">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.", ">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.", ">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).", ">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.", ">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.", ">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.", ">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.", ">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.", ">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.", ">\n\n\nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \n\nWhy? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it. \n\nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \n\nWhy? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? \nLet's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project. \n\nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.\n\nTotally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator.", ">\n\nFor the most part, knowledge workers perform a given amount of work in a given amount of hours, and the number of them hired by a company is TotalHoursNeeded/NumHoursPerEmployee. E.g. if you have 100 manyears of work to get done in a typical year, you employ 100 people.\nChat GPT isn't going to \"replace\" people wholesale, because as you say someone still needs to supervise it. But it looks to be on track to increase the productivity of programmers (can write a first draft of code and finds many of the bugs instantly). \nSame for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones. \nSo now the TotalNeeded is decreased by some percentage, let's say 10% to start. Now you only need 90 human programmers to do that same work. With 25% efficiency gain, you need 75. With 50%, 50. Etc. \nOr take translation jobs. Today, an editor spends roughly 3 minutes per word editing machine translated text, and 1 minute per word editing human-translated text. As long as editors are more expensive per hour than first translation people, it still makes sense much of the time to hire translators, because the software isn't free. \nBut the graph of machine translation \"efficiency\" is trending towards taking the same amount of time to edit as a human translator. As soon as that's hit, there's literally no reason to hire human translators, only editors. \nAnd if the editing time goes down to 30 seconds/word because of further AI assistance to the editor, you only need half as many of those.", ">\n\nThere is currently two better solutions being worked on - one of which is already being used to some degree. \nThe first is ChatGPT developers themselves making moves to make AI written works to be identified by \"watermark\" or similar. I don't thi k this one has taken effect at all yet. \nAnother is by a separate dev team that allows teachers to use software to determine the amount of an essay, for example, that is written by AI what the likelihood of any one sentence or paragraph to have been written by AI. This allows the teachers to use discretion when determining if the student used the AI in a way that they find acceptable or not. This way instead kf running from the scary AI educators can actually utilize tyhe AI with students to help them develop their writing and other communications.", ">\n\nWhat about kids with transportation issues? When I was in school I knew kids that drove almost an hour each way to get there. I certainly couldn’t have asked my parents to drop everything to take me all the way to school so I could do my homework if I forgot. Bus schedules? Do you think schools want to waste more money by burning more gas for extra routes? I understand where you’re coming from, but for a fair amount of children—especially in poorer, more rural areas—that getting to school and back is such a delicate balancing act that such a thing would just punish them.", ">\n\nI've seen a few key things from academics testing out ChatGPT (I have not signed up myself):\n\nIt tends to produce confident, convincing nonsense. It doesn't actually understand what it's writing about, and I hear it shows.\nIt makes up citations. Real authors in the field, real journals... but made-up titles. Things like that, since, again, it doesn't actually understand citations.\n\nThis suggests that, for assignments requiring the demonstration of genuine, in-depth understanding, and not merely the ability to summarize facts, ChatGPT will fail.\nA similar example that you bring up in the comments is programming cheat sheets into calculators - but for well-designed engineering exams (including the licensure exams, at least in the US), cheat sheets are fine and often either allowed or provided. A well-designed exam tests the ability to apply principles, not knowledge of equations, so a cheat sheet is harmless, or even allows the exam to work better (since people aren't distracted with memorizing equations).", ">\n\nThere are three criticisms that I have of this approach. \n\n\nShould we not teach to the environment that we live in? Yes, education often imposes arbitrary constraints like time tests but for research and reports why not let people use and work around all resources? If you can work around chat gpt to work efficiently, then do it. You learn what it can and can’t do and how to use it effectively as a tool. \n\n\nCan chatGPT on it’s own actually write a good essay? From what I have seen it can pull together a few sources. It can generally write fluff based on other things that it has seen. But it struggles to write analysis. It can’t interrogate a source or make value judgements. It could be useful for doing some filler or providing ideas but if to do an actual report, I think it would be insufficient. \n\n\nAn assignment that can be done using chatgpt is probably boring. Here I am writing an essay for no reason other than I find it interesting to discuss this topic. Perhaps, we arent giving students interesting enough assignments or we are overloading them to the point that they don’t have the time to engage? If chatGPT turns out to be an issue maybe it’s more of an indictment of the structures and norms of education.", ">\n\n\n\nhomework in the form of essays, take home tests, coding assignments, would be completed on school grounds. \n\n\nCongratulations, you've invented the \"cram school\".\nI'd recommend reading through your post again and actually thinking about the things you've said. Because essentially, you're merely advocating for the wholesale elimination of homework and for education outside of that to remain totally unchanged. It's almost literally, \"Make the school day 30% longer\".\nMy solution to the \"problem\" of students potentially using ChatGPT to cheat on homework: I don't think you need a hilariously convoluted system of homework \"boiler rooms\" redolent of national security apparatus, that requires schools to adopt ruinously expensive and disruptive technological and administrative changes.\nIt would be sufficient if we institute a system whereby teachers are encouraged to, let's say... \"test\" their students, whether by regular written exams or by talking to them in what I'll call \"classes\", to ensure they understand the material they've been assigned to learn.\nThis method ensures that students cannot use AI homework bots to coast through classes (since they'll literally be found out the very next class), and has the added benefit of not adding three hours to every teacher's day.", ">\n\nWhat about pen and ink?", ">\n\narguably I can just copy a ChatGPT output by hand. So I think that is a first level measure, but not a complete solution.", ">\n\nIt's a better solution than prison just because the curriculum can't keep up with technology.\nWhen calculators arrived on everyone's phone and everyone's pocket did you advocate for the same solution? Unlikely, so why only now with this system?", ">\n\nWell I did and I was. When I was studying engineering in the 80s we routinely could not arrive at exams with a calculator. Even then calculators were programmable enough to allow students to write cheat sheets in calculator memory.\nIt forced us to memorize equations, principals of engineering, and independent thinking. I’m a better engineer because I did.", ">\n\nSo you're what, almost 60? And you think what's best for children is to be like you? Don't you think you may be a bit out of touch?\nAlso, your view was about K12 students, not engineering students.", ">\n\nNo. As I replied, leaning on tools as a crutch all your life will limit your ability and function as a human. For example, you could argue that basic math isn’t necessary. As matter of fact that was an argument years ago with the advent of calculators.\nHowever, humans should be able to exist and functions without a digital crutch. You should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator. You should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google. There are basic elements of duration necessary since we are all still wet grey matter.", ">\n\n\nYou should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator\n\nBut why?\n\nYou should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google\n\nAgain, why?\nWhere do you get your \"should\" from?\nI have basically all human knowledge in my hand, every equation or conversion I'll ever need day to day, even every language I'll likely ever encounter. Why shouldn't I leave my brain free to think about what it wants and to use my incredible resource as and when it's needed?\nDo you envision some Saw-like situation where you're locked to a wall and need to solve maths equations at pain of death?", ">\n\nThe less you use your brain the less likely your body is to maintain it. Our body functions through a use or lose it principle. Just look people who lose movement function/muscle just by being bedridden for a long time. Our brain is not different.\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.", ">\n\nIs wasting resources on process you can deletage outside not using your brain? You free up that space to put to what you decide is important.\n\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.\n\nThe weakest man with a gun can take out the strongest bodybuilder.", ">\n\nAnd if you decide Tik tok and Netflix are important? How do you think that will affect the cognitive ability of kids?\nI didn't mention strength nor physical strength. And even then the strongest man with a gun will probably take out the weakest man with a gun.(An actual fair comparison)", ">\n\nCouldn't chatgpt (or somesuch AI) be asked \"Hey - did you write this?\" and nip this sort of thing in the bud?", ">\n\nNo, Chat GPT doesn't remember everything it's said, the potential things it could say are huge and even if someone wrote something that Chat GPT might say, it could be a coincidence.", ">\n\nWell, strike that idea then.\nStill though - there must be some way to use AI to deal with this. \"set a thief to catch a thief\" and all that.", ">\n\nChat GPT (and most generative AIs) use GANs to generate content. \nIn laymen's terms (and extremely simplified as it's above my level of understanding) a GAN is 2 AI systems competing against each other, a creator AI that creates content and a checker AI that decides if the content was genuine or made by the other AI. \nSo any automated way to tell if it's AI generated can be built into the checker AI in future versions and the creator AI will learn to avoid whichever features the checker AI is spotting.", ">\n\nChatGPT is just another mechanism for reducing the need for labor, and it's not going away. \nChildren will need to be educated in both how to make effective use of it (for as long as it's not sufficient to completely eliminate mental labor), and also in the ethics of not using it. Always forcing them to write in airgapped places isn't going to do that, it just makes them resent it. \nAlso: essay writing on a scale needed to really learn long-form writing is not very amenable to doing in an airgapped classroom, because honestly we're not using dead-tree sources of information anymore already, so doing their research pretty much has to include doing it on line. \nBut really: laborious manual long-form essay writing is going to go the way of penmanship and looking things up in a library as an unneeded skill very quickly. We need children to adjust to that reality of the modern world rather than pretending it will go away. \nPeople are still needed (for now) to do the important part of writing essays without doing the laborious bit that ChatGPT automates anyway: deciding what to write, and editing it into a convincing and well-written form. \nForcing kids to spend a lot of time learning how to write the basic bulk part of essays is a lot like teaching them how to make buggy-whips in shop class: a pointless exercise. \nIt would be better to give them all prewritten ChatGPT essays and have them learn the limitations and capabilities.", ">\n\nIs ChatGPT really that much more effective than just grabbing things off Wikipedia? I was asking it things about elections and it was just Wikipedia from two years ago", ">\n\nThe answer is NEVER to limit technology. It’s to teach the new generation how to use that technology to achieve the same goal.\nIt’s pointless to ban computers and teach the memorization of dates in history class. It’s much more productive to teach online research skills so that if an individual needs to know the date of a particular moment in history, they can reliably Google it.\nChatGPT is the same. It renders writing essays as pointless, and it necessitates the teachers to adapt to new teaching styles, such as teaching the skills on how best to manipulate ChatGPT to return the information you need.", ">\n\nI was banned from using programming calculators when I studied engineering in the 80s during exams. It forced the students to all be on the same level playing field and forced us to actually know the equations, their applications, and the processes of whatever engineering course I was taking.\nIt made us better engineers.", ">\n\nHow does handicapping you make you a better engineer? If I put you and an engineer trained with technology in the same room together, who do you think would accomplish the task faster?", ">\n\nThe handicapped engineer, easily. The point of forcing students to actually learn the material is so that they understand how to reason about the underlying processes when they need to troubleshoot something going wrong, and understand the tradeoffs between approaches and how to select the best one for the task. \nOnce you understand things deeply you don't actually need training in doing things quickly because it's immediately intuitive how to apply a technological process to save time. The guy that leaned heavily on technology is basically fucked if he has to use a technique or software that he didn't specifically train on since he doesn't have a good foundation to abstract from. It would be more appropriate to call this person a technician.", ">\n\nThe purpose of calculators is to do the menial part of the work, not to solve whole processes. The engineer that learned with calculators likely knows how to select the right process to solve a problem, but uses the calculator to do the math faster and with fewer errors.", ">\n\nAt the college level, we’re not talking about tools to add and multiply. We’re talking about tools like Wolfram Alpha that do entire symbolic manipulations for you. If I took a calculus class and on all the assignments used Wolfram Alpha to find derivatives, do you think I would have learned anything?\nThat is what ChatGPT is doing for essays", ">\n\nThere are things called pencil and paper.", ">\n\nAs I said, this is the first line defense. However as I already commented to another user. I can simply hand copy ChatGPT output. Essentially not doing my own independent research, writing, coding, and studying.", ">\n\nWhy don't you consider that research? \nThe first source was the best. It's incredibly efficient research IMO.", ">\n\nThe idea of tool removal has always been flawed. From calculators to chat GPT and beyond. If your test is so flimsy that a simple tool invalidates it then the test is poorly built. Test shouldn't be simple busywork tasks, they should require thinking, problem solving, complex thought. If it's just a game of memorization that can be cheated by answers on a paper, you've built a bad test.\nover memorization (which is what our current school systems teach) is not only unhelpful, but also harmful. We live in an era of wikipedia being a reliable source, of vast access to tools both online and phsycial. We should be teaching kids they should do the work but with the help of those tools, not despite them.\nThe main issue with your argument is that based on what you've said, i can assume you think the current school system is a good one but so many studies have shown that at least here in the US, the school systems are some of the worst in the world. It's this memorize, ignore tools, singular focus mentality that plays such a big role.\nIf we were more creative with education, incorporating tool utilization into the learning process, we'd likely have a major improvement to our educational successes. I could go on about how the education system prefers certain kinds of students over others, and how many students are left behind simply because they don't learn like other kids and are therefore punished, but I won't. All I'll say is that more restrictions on how and what kids learn isn't going to help them learn more or better.\nand in 15 years when chat GPT is a part of daily life in every single company on the planet in some way or another (which I'm beyond certain it will be), kids who were taught how to properly utilize it will have just such a huge advantage in the workforce over those who weren't", ">\n\nRather than attempt to find ways to prevent new technology from interfering with existing pedagogy, shouldn't we review and revise pedagogy as new technology develops? \nIf a chat AI program can write these things, what is the point of having humans repeatedly do the same work? We don't expect people to use an abacus when doing math, or limit their research to what's in the library card catalogue, or require printed paper publications as essay resources; we adapted to the calculator, and to the internet and search engines. So too should we adapt to things like ChatGPT, not by trying to pretend it doesn't exist, but by finding ways to incorporate it into a more holistic approach to learning.\nRather than chain kids to an airgapped room on school grounds outside of school hours to do homework that's of dubious educational value in the first place, we should take this as an opportunity to refocus schooling on in-class engagement and direct instruction. ChatGPT and programs like it are showing us yet another thing we as humans can outsource to our technology, so why struggle to do things in a more difficult and inefficient way?", ">\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\nIn addition, AI is only as good as the data it is fed. You must still be able to do the work on your own to analyze when the AI is giving valid outputs (garbage in, garbage out). This is especially true, when AI runs the risks of being owned or operated by those with a specific agenda. Can you imagine the trouble that would result if people relied on AI to determine who to vote for, but someone was able to pay the operators to have the AI promote them?\nRelying on AI to do our work for us is a distillation of an appeal to authority fallacy on a large scale (if the AI says it, it must be true).", ">\n\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\n\nThis is something I worry about A LOT when it comes to AI. Our collective understanding of the subjects that we usually classify as \"the humanities\" is constantly evolving as we learn more, and especially as a more diverse set of people are allowed to study, research and put forth opinions and arguments.\nImagine if students were outsourcing all their history, psychology, sociology and philosophy homework to a chatbot with a 1950s understanding of those subjects.\nImagine doctors outsourcing psych patient diagnoses to a chatbot with the same understanding.\nOn an arguably less \"serious\" but still critically important moral and political topic, imagine if all/most videogame art was outsourced to an AI engine with a 1990s sensibility for female characters. Same for all kinds of representation and diversity.\nHow about politics and political science in general... ha!\nEtc, etc etc.\nIt is NOT the case that we already have discovered all the true answers to the big questions, and we can merely turn to a \"knowledge calculator\" like ChatGPT to spit out the truth.\nEven if AI can pretty accurately reflect the discourse of the day, as it is currently understood and accepted, our collective knowledge and culture will stagnate if we do not actively participate in developing it, and we will all pay the price for that.", ">\n\nThese are all moralistic arguments that ultimately don’t mean anything.", ">\n\nI would say they are more epistemic arguments, which do matter greatly in the context of education (which is what the op was referring to).", ">\n\nAre any of these things mentioned actually realistic concerns? Someone is going to train an AI bot to generate 90s female art characters with big tits?\nNo. Lol and even if someone did, who cares?", ">\n\nConsidering how many people believe obviously fake stories that have no supporting evidence (and in spite of contrary evidence), yes, I believe they are very real concerns.\nIf an AI says we should use Brawndo in farming because its got what plants crave (electrolytes), we should probably be able to justify it with reasoning beyond \"the AI says so.\"", ">\n\nWho is suggesting we do anything “just because an AI said so”? \nDo you read books and think everything in it is true “because the book says so”?", ">\n\nHow do you determine if what the book/ai said is false?\nYou would typically do it through a process of research and discovery.\nPeoples' ability to do research and discovery will be greatly diminished if we rely on AI to do those things for us (which is what the previous posters were suggesting).\nTherefore, reliance on AI will lead to us losing the ability to discern if the results of what the AI is saying is correct.", ">\n\nWhat? Lol that doesn’t make any sense at all. \nIt is not like if we use AI then all previous knowledge is simply forgotten or lost. It’s all still there.", ">\n\nForcing homework at school makes that \"not homework\", and this approach has never worked. You cant reject change, it never works. Every time there has been a game changing event, people adapted. Those who tried to reject change disappeared. Horse carriages disappeared from roads because something else replaced it. Some people supposedly rejected progress, but they are lying to themselves, they still use modern tech or services at some point.\nAnyway, the change is here, and it made essays irrelevant. Time to find another way to test people skills. \nGive it a little time though. ChatGPT costs a ginormous amount of money to run and will not stay free for long either.", ">\n\nIt's not just ChatGPT, the actual innovation is not the interface but lies in algorithms that can recreate natural language of similar quality with smaller data samples. There are also OpenSource datasets like ThePile, etc. so even if OpenAI moves to a paid model (and they will, quickly. You can already sign up to be first in line for the API), there will be other free providers.", ">\n\nHaving coded AIs, I disagree. ChatGPT is a regular trained AI. The novelty is the scale of the operation, and the fact there is a public API.\nNo one ever spent that much money on resources to run and train an AI publicly. I am pretty sure google has done something similar with user data sets to make their search engine and general ecosystem.\nI wish there was a way to have algorithms working with smaller data sets and produce similar results, but it kind of does not work that way.", ">\n\nThere are already tools to identify ChatGPT generated texts. Such tools will improve as another use of literally the same technology.\nJust as teachers submit essays for identifying plagiarism, teachers will submit essays for identifying AI-generated text. \nFurther, a focus could change from grading students on what they know to grading students' ability to ask meaningful, content-based questions about the subject. After all, knowing facts isn't particularly valuable as a skill. Integrating facts and discovering valuable questions is still something that remains a uniquely human skill. And is where people will continue to add value as AI becomes more advanced.", ">\n\nStudents have always been able to 'cheat' on work done outside the classroom, by copying or somehow getting others to do their work for them, even before the internet. Yes with more advanced modern technology it is easier but this has always been a concern. \nAs regular learning environments like supervised classrooms are already 'quarantined' in the way you descibe you are fundementally just suggesting an increase in learning hours as a supplement to homework. This has been suggested by many for various reasons but it would overall cuase more issues than it fixes. It increases work load on teachers and administrators, stretching already thin educational budgets, and forces increased mental strain on children. It would limit their ability to do other recreational and out of ciriculum activities. This would be disruptive and controlling when the quantity of teaching and learning time that children recive is already considered sufficiant for a good education.", ">\n\nHell the only thing stopping me from using ChatGPT regularly for my work now is that it's always at capacity.", ">\n\nApply tests that are hand written, doesnt matter how a person obtains the knowledge, actually learning the subject is most important thing.", ">\n\nThere is no amount of ChatGPT that could influence a good old oral exam where the teacher evaluates the understanding via a little chat.", ">\n\nSo tired of this view. We shouldn’t be fighting technology. Teach kids to use the resources they have to find answers. It’s such a waste of 12 years of school, teaching kids to memorize facts and follow rules. \nInstead, every test should be open book and reward the best answers. Ask the kids to show their work or explain their thought process so we reward understanding of a topic rather than memorization of steps or text.", ">\n\n20 years ago, there were already homework communities and learn groups. Even from the publishers of school books and with free access to tutors. Ok, they didnt do the final homework for me, but gave me a great starting point.\nBeing the kid who transcribes a wiki page was already stupid back then when others could call you out:\nBut I guess the actual problem is lack of digital literacy with teachers, they're always 5-10 years behind.", ">\n\nIf you are testing skills that can be done by free tools on the internet, then you are testing irrelevant skills.\nThe best way to educate kids is to test for skills they need, not skills they objectively don't.\nI was able to witness a couple of universities adapt to tests during quarantine, and follow reports on how the new methods would be used going forward.\nThe results where thus:\nMass offline testing is incredibly cost efficient (one examiner per ~300 students), but the tests results are a poor indicator of real world performance.\nOne to One testing is incredibly expensive, but can, when done right, test actual understanding and performance.\nBoth will be useful, of course. Mass testing is most useful when used in a way that students aren't incentivized to cheat, such as when framed as practice.", ">\n\nOne of the upsides of needing to prevent this kind of tech from cheating assignments is that teachers should focus on having students be able to do their homework at school. (As a former teacher, we were trying to do this already- no more than 15 min of homework per class). \nI dont think we need to do quite what you say. We just need to limit outside electronics and have in-person classrooms or computer labs with programs designed to be AI-proof. \nI have ALWAYS believed that cell phones/internet watches should be stored in school lockers (at most) and never allowed anywhere else on campus during the school day. If anyone needs to contact the students they contact the desk who relays their message/other need. Many schools already do this.", ">\n\n∆\nI agree with this. It would help.", ">\n\nThank you!", ">\n\nThat is utterly pointless.\nThere is no reason to limit the available tools.\nThis just reminds me of the entire \"you won't have a calculator wherever you go\" argument.\nSchool should instead put a focus on responsibly using available tools.", ">\n\nAnd if students choose to use them irresponsibly, what should schools do?\nAnd can you please define what constitutes responsible use? Because despite knowing about plagiarism, people still copy and paste from the internet. Perfect abstinence is easier than perfect moderation after all.", ">\n\nJust return to hand written essays and have more oral exams.", ">\n\n∆l\nActually of all comments having oral exams compliments my post and I agree with you. Enjoy the delta.", ">\n\nIn a Faraday cage.", ">\n\nIf children can just generate work with ChatGPT, it simply shows that children are not being taught anything valuable. (Once ChatGPT responses can be generated in almost unlimited amounts at very low cost, it necessarily means those responses are of low value)\nInstead shouldn't we be teaching children to provide more valuable outcomes that ChatGPT can't replicate?", ">\n\nBeing able to do on your own what ChatGPT does with access to an immense amount of data and processing power is valuable. The actual writing isn't valuable, obviously, but it would be silly to expect it to be. It's just a side effect of practice, you spend time making things of little or no value to build up the skills you'll need to make something that actually matters. That's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\nI think you'd be hard pressed to teach a class of children to outperform ChatGPT in writing without ever asking them to write something that could also be done via AI. What would that even look like?", ">\n\n\nThat's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\n\nIt is a problem. That is why I hated math class until 2nd year of university.", ">\n\nDid you start discovering novel math results in your second year of university, or was that just the point at which you first encountered problems you found interesting, despite the fact that someone else had already solved them before? Thinking back the class you didn't hate, do you think it should be removed if someone can construct an AI to give all the answers you gave?", ">\n\nThis is only a method for evaluating students, it doesn't do anything to educate them.\nChatgpt is potentially a great tool for education but trying to find complex ways around it for homework is pointless. When testing fact retention is required using school/university computers with no web browsing makes sense. For any other test or situation it's a tool that might be used.", ">\n\nI understand OPs concern. That said, I do not think you can create true quarantine for a multitude of reasons. \nThe biggest one is probably time. I worked through high school and university. Because I lived in the middle of nowhere it was about a 30 min drive to high school and then an hour to uni. Having to stay at these quarantine zones to complete assignments would have been hell on my schedule, car, and wallet. \nYou said it yourself, if someone is going to cheat, they will cheat. If I had to do the work in a quarantine zone, what exactly stops me from doing the actual work on my computer at home, printing it all out, and then just writing that into the computer at the quarantine zone? Unless you want to try having students write an entire essay in their hour long class? There has to be a point where they go home and then this falls apart.", ">\n\nThere are already lots of ways to cheat in homework and mostly our steps to deal with that amount to the honour system, and by university level, automated plagiarism detection (which can be quite easily avoided). The point you \"won't argue\" that people will cheat if given the opportunity is probably the actual crux of what's wrong with your suggestion and the part that needs a big [citation needed]. Concluding that the majority of people are fundamentally dishonest is a big assumption to handwave away. \nIf you want an education, cheating is stupid. Ultimately you might get a paper qualification out of it but you'll have actually learned nothing - you won't hold up long against someone who has done it properly when you actually have to apply the skills. Or if you do, then the assignments weren't that crucial to the learning in the first place.", ">\n\nMany of the things I learned in school were largely irrelevant. I couldn't use a calculator to do long division. After I passed those early elementary school years I never did long division again. I wouldn't even argue learning the long division algo is mandatory. It's nice to have learnt it I guess, but I spent way too many hours on it. I can see learning fundamentals of essay writing, etc, are great, but why can't we just evolve to learn more effective things in life? ChatGPT should be used as a tool, not viewed as a detriment.", ">\n\nIt'd suggest that the best way to educate them is to embrace ChatGBT and teach them to use it well. Your method is a bit like teaching kids to do math without calculators or accounting without excel or financial software. There is some value, but it runs out very quickly and you're at a social and competetive disadvantage for taking some archane principled approach to education that is more of a defense of \"how we used to do it\".\nI'm old enough to remember when using a word processor was sometime forbidden for reasons of fairness - that seems entirely disconnected now from doing good work and it's almost hard to envision the thought process of those who thought everything should be hand written for students. \nIsn't the kid who is amazing at utilizing tools like ChatGBT going to do much better in the world than the one who does not? Your idea of \"proper education\" would easily regress back to needing to do all subjects scrawled in dirt with sticks and grunted in non-standardized language.", ">\n\nOR, chatgpt will be a great boon to the entire education system:\nIncreased accessibility: ChatGPT and other AI-powered systems can provide education to individuals who otherwise would not have access to it, due to geographical, financial, or other barriers.\n\nPersonalized learning: ChatGPT can provide personalized education experiences based on each student's strengths, weaknesses, and learning style.\n\n24/7 availability: ChatGPT can operate 24/7, providing students with access to education at any time, anywhere, which can be especially beneficial for those with demanding schedules or for individuals in remote areas.\n\nScalability: ChatGPT can provide education to a large number of students simultaneously, which could help to address the shortage of teachers and resources in some areas.\n\nCost-effectiveness: ChatGPT can be a more cost-effective option for providing education compared to traditional methods, as it does not require physical classrooms or teachers.\n\nImproved student engagement: ChatGPT can provide interactive, engaging learning experiences that can hold students' attention and foster deeper learning.\n\n--Source: ChatGPT", ">\n\nThere a lots of places where texts and exams are “open book”. The questions have to be written differently, and the point is that you’re not testing someone’s ability to memorize, but rather their ability to understand. This is a more difficult test to write, so in theory AI could force education to improve since everyone would a virtual tutor with them at all times.", ">\n\nI'm a teacher and I've been thinking a lot about this the last couple months. Changes within the education system/curriculum/syllabus/retraining of teachers will take far too long to keep up with the ease of access to, and success of, chatgpt and AI in general. \nThe only solution moving forward both short and long term is to embrace it, there is no stopping it now anyway and if we don't all want to be out of a job in 5 years we need to - \n- demonstrate feasible/moral/ethical use of such tools\n- create more opportunities for collaborative learning/hands-on/problem solving tasks and ones that increase communication skills between peers. \nHow this applies to each individual, specific task will vary and must require a lot of creativity and trial and error, but I think relying too heavily on your department of education to handle this (or most 'boots on the ground' problems) will ultimately only degrade a students experience and ability for learning.", ">\n\nI'm with you on what you're trying to accomplish. I just don't know that it's the \"best\" way. \nFor instance, how is homework performed in school superior to trusting the kids to learn the material, which would then be tested by oral exam? And yes, I do believe that asking a student to verbally explain a topic is a really good way to gauge mastery.", ">\n\nThere is not a hope in hell that we'll go back to hand written stuff. That's not how technology works. As the music companies. There are better ways to show you know a subject, for sure, than the current out of-date ones. That's for sure. Have you ever taken an on-line exam?", ">\n\nI argue to let them use chatGPT as it will be their future. This is similar to my generations \"you'll never walk around with a calculator so learn math.\" The future children will grow into a society where work means utilizing AI tech to help them thrive. If chatGPT helps them write an essay, and it's good, it means they're using resources. I agree, however, that we should supplement this with actual reading and writing.", ">\n\nI would argue that most of time that ChatGPT and similar technologies is going to be an issue is in 8-12 grade and college.\nThis technology is not going away, and it's only going to improve. Personally I would treat it like calculators, audio books and spell check.\nTech kids how to use the technology properly. Sure it's somewhat handy to calculate numbers in your head, but having the ability to do math in your head does not give you much of an advantage in today's world and not being able to doesn't hurt you much. But it's still critical to know formulas and how to peace together algebraic statements and word problems. \nKnowing how to spell properly is less important than knowing proper word usage - most times you're writing something it can be spell-checked in real time. Sure it's \"terrible that today's kids...\" don't know how to spell... but it's not going to affect their career. \nEnter ChatGPT - same thing. Should I spend the time to write a white paper on the changing advertising landscape to alert my boss about the a potential seismic shift in advertising revenue, or should I ask ChatGPT to write it? As a user I have to understand its limits and potential copywrite issues, but even more importantly how to verify that what it writes is correct and targeting the right audience. Is data from before 2020 going to be recent and accurate enough for my thesis? How do I supplement the discussion with real-world data? \nThis is our new reality. We should be learning how to use the tools properly, not trying to figure out to lock it down (which frankly makes as much sense as locking down the use of calculators or spell check).", ">\n\nI think there are already apps in place that are able to detect AI generated text (Read this article).\nAlso, I think a better method would be to simply have a database of ChatGPT (could be encrypted) generated text and make it available to already existing software that is use to detect plagiarism (this is just an exemple amongst many)", ">\n\nFrankly I don’t think high schoolers and below should be given homework or tests at all. One learns magnitudes better through exploration as opposed to mindless repetition. Engage with these kids intellectually, make them free thinking Athenians, not bags of knowledge of which they have no idea how to use.\nDoes it not surprise anyone that we train people for over a decade in intellect yet hardly have any intellectuals?", ">\n\nI would argue that society would be better off spending resources on teaching children how to use this tool effectively. Knowing how to get the right answer is what matters in this world.", ">\n\nThen answer this: Well why learn math at all? Seriously.\nWhy learn he concept of subtraction let alone division? I could and society has argued that with the advent of digital calculators. \nYet we learn it. \nLater we use calculators to take the mundane and already known processes to the next level. We abstract away the mundane. \nAs a EE having worked and am working on products you may be using right now to read this, when I develop new silicon and chips I don’t break out Karnaugh maps and lay down circuit using a T square and stencils of gates. But I sure the hell know what I’m doing and expect the tools to do for me. \nTeaching fundamentals of reading, writing, arithmetic, essays, research are just that fundamental.", ">\n\nI’d argue that the vast majority don’t need anything beyond basic math anyways. \nGo ask the average adult if they know the quadratic equation and what it means and you’d probably be disappointed.", ">\n\nChatGPT is here to stay, you'd better advocate for teaching people how to make the most of it and use it wisely instead of pretending it doesn't exist.\nOne of my favourite teachers always told students to use the best tools there are.", ">\n\nI think it depends completely on the topic. In my field of study, it’s fairly easy to come up with term paper assignments that the bot would be useless for. \nLooking back at the paper I wrote last year, I don’t see how any current bot could have helped, as it isn’t able to read or summarize specific sources (yet?).\nAn example of the type of assignments we get is “Discuss the role of state capacity in x and x conflict in light of (specific research paper)‘s dimensions of state capacity - do your findings confirm the findings of (authors), why or why not?\nThis way of combining literature made it difficult even for me to be on top of it, as there were no sources that had attempted this exact combination - it has to be original. \nAlso, I find it’s the best way to learn, because you have to rely on your own judgement and there are no shortcuts, even asking the professor was unhelpful as he wasn’t too familiar with the details.", ">\n\nThis is not the best way.", ">\n\n\nThese homework rooms would have Internet connected computers for use but access to ChatGPT would be filtered and blocked.\n\nThis wouldn't be feasible, there's far too many roundabout ways to still access ChatGPT. Security measures like domain filtering are just unproductive games of whack-a-mole. \nEdit: removed all the other stuff I wrote, as those points have already been mentioned in previous top-level comments.", ">\n\nHomework shouldn’t be the go-to method of “education” to begin with. Imo Universities should focus on the integral part of education: the lectures. Tools like chatgpt can help student who are actually interested in a subject to learn more easily about it, but whether students actually learn anything or not from a class won’t change regardless of if work is authentic or copied from an AI\nSource: I’m a college student and have had experience in both supervised environments where we had to do work without the use of computers/phones and solely-online environments where many students cheated", ">\n\nWhile this could work, it is not necessarily the best way in terms of accessibility and of learning in general. \nFirst, students with ADHD and certain other conditions may not necessarily be the able to be productive at all times, or at the specific time they have to work on those computers, especially if those computers are not in an environment ideal to that specific person. It would also not be very feasible to give students enough time on these computers to complete the bigger assignments and essays. \nSecond, while ChatGPT is quite advanced, it simply works by looking at language patterns and often gets factual details incorrect. For example, with bigger coding problems, it tries to import modules that do not exist or call on functions that it has not defined. In literature, it cannot analyze texts on much more than a surface level. I will admit it can use secondary sources for textual analysis, however, it is unable to come up with a clear thesis on its own. \nAdditionally, take-home tests can be just as easily cheated on using a normal Google search, and usually test thinking skills rather than understanding and knowledge. \nFinally, essay-writing and other types of assignments are generally not ideal for learning as they are only one type of skill, and university professors are recognizing this. Not only do they not work for all learning styles, but they are only used so commonly because of tradition. University professors are structuring assignments around ways that are innovative enough that ChatGPT is unable to work on them. Along with requiring specific readings which the AI might not have access to, and citing of all sources (which has always been a requirement that the AI might trip up on), they are also going away from the traditional essay format into others. For example, I am studying literature, a relatively essay-heavy field, and in my past few courses I have been asked to analyze comics (which the AI cannot read), edit other people’s essays and articles (from past courses), create a mock syllabus or lesson plan with justifications for each reading, and create annotated bibliographies as a stepping stone to an essay. All of these not only require different skills and encourage different types of learning and research but are quite difficult for an AI to do. \nAll in all, while your suggestion is great, the very nature of the AI and the fact that it exists at all is perhaps a sign that the best course of action is to rework the way we think about evaluation. After all, if an evaluation is such that an AI can complete it without the ability to actually think (it works by using observed language patterns), then perhaps the evaluation is not ideal.", ">\n\nI bet teachers and people thought the same thing about calculators when they came out or 1990s internet. AI bots like chat GPT are just a tool.", ">\n\nAll this effectively does is train kids to accomplish goals of a type that do not exist in the real world in a situation they will never realistically encounter. A better goal is adjusting testing criteria to account for this.\nThere might be very specific sets of knowledge for which rote memorization is appropriate, and for those, the air gapped testing may be appropriate. But I believe those are the exception rather than the rule. By and large, teaching kids to effectively utilize the tools that will be available to them is what we should be doing.", ">\n\nImagine learning where the only books are hand written.\nThe printing press took out a huge amount of repetitive labor in the learning process.\nAI/ChatGPT stands a good chance of removing a huge amount knowledge labor which stands between an idea and the end product. Learning to use the AI to best effect the Idea->End Product Chain is more important than worrying about memorizing formulae we will likely never need to remember. \nThe effort to restrict ChatGPT is just education system worrying about their Cheese Being Moved.", ">\n\nThis just doesn't make any sense to me. You're arguing that we shouldn't allow students to use tools they would have at their disposal in a real working environment, and for what? Why wouldn't you want students to use every tool at their disposal? How exactly is handicapping them helping them to understand the coursework?\nA much better approach would be to fundamentally alter how we teach to better prepare them for the workforce. Encouraging collaboration and creative problem solving skills is much more practical and effective.", ">\n\nChatGPT may pass the Bar, but I highly doubt it will replace lawyers or other professionals. \nThe whole point of credentialing is to drive accountability. Anyone can study the law and cite precedent without a law degree. Actually representing a client in a court of law requires oversight and knowledge. ChatGPT isn't perfect - it will make mistakes from time to time. So who is responsible when it makes a mistake? When is a client (who is not familiar with the law) supposed to know that a mistake has been made on their behalf? For this reason, until ChatGPT is literally perfect you're always going to need a credentialed professional to review the output.\nFor the record, I think ChatGPT is wonderful. But it's a tool that people will use, not a full-fledged replacement for professionals. My employer (a Fortune 500 company) has already rejected its use for internal projects. IT has the website blocked.", ">\n\nThe kids that are educated without its use will fall behind in business when faced with kids that are using it to its fullest extent.\nYou've successfully made an argument for people to succeed in a test that is worthless in the real world. Its parameters don't match.", ">\n\nThe best way to educate children is to teach them skills and strategies that will actually serve them in the workplace of the future. \nChatGPT already has reached the point of replacing humans (See Buzzfeed news). If ChatGPT can take the test or do the homework then what value is that education going to be to these students? Especially older students will quickly see rote memorization as a waste of time and so yes they probably will cheat if they have the opportunity. Trying to force these things to be “learned” and prove that knowledge by brute force banning things is going to be a costly uphill battle.", ">\n\nWhat if we modify how essays are written by students, by asking them to include citations (which is something ChatGPT can’t do)?\nWe can’t stop new tools from making old methods obsolete. But we can focus on enhancing critical thinking of students in a stepwise manner. When a new tool is created, think about how you can adapt rather than resist it.", ">\n\nWhy not just train an ai to spot ai written papers?", ">\n\nWhat about gradually putting more emphasis on oral assignments?", ">\n\nEverything you said makes perfect sense...IF the goal was to teach children simply how to write the perfect standard essay. But that is a very limited way of viewing education and what its real goal is. The real goal of education is to teach children how to think. To come up with the right questions, not just the right answers. In a world where a \"good enough\" essay on literally anything can be conjured as if by magic by a machine, what's the actual value of that exercise now? For a very long time teachers have used the essay as a way to evaluate how a person thinks. Now that a machine can write it for you, we need new ways to evaluate how students think. That's the real task we are facing. Fuck the essay, just like we ditched the slide rule for calculators and later computers, etc. Tools change but the real game remains the same: Think for yourself!", ">\n\nI'd say the best way would be to accept the reality of changing technology and reevaluating the approach we have towards education as a whole.\nGranted, I'd say that's only one half of the picture: reassessing how we conceive if jobs and labour in the face of increasing automation goes along with that, and I think neither really works without the other.\nBottom line is that human labour is more and more obsolete as time goes on, so human jobs will be less and less in demand (I'd argue moving away from a capitalistic system is the right call, but even if you don't, automation is still an incentive).\nSince a large part of the incentive of our current education system is \"prepare you for a job\" I think the whole thing is going to fall short in light of these kinds of systems developing.\nTheres lots of people now who pursue knowledge as a project of passion, rather than a means to an end, and I think moving to a system that supports and encourages that kind of ambition is the way to go.", ">\n\nI disagree. We should learn to use the tools we have efficiently. Otherwise you are not learning for your career but for some professors ego", ">\n\nThat’s not “education in the era of ChatGPT.” That’s education in the era before ChatGPT while we figure out what the world with ChatGPT will look like so we have some idea of what to do with it.\nThat’s also not “educating,” that’s just “assessment.” Assessment is simply a measuring system for education. As long as you think of the acquisition of knowledge and skill as requiring knowledge regurgitation and skill performance in isolation and divorced from context/individualized, then you’re going to end up at necessitating a kind of geofenced, Luddite assessment model. The training itself predicates the assessment method. How we assess is defined by how we teach, and vice versa.\nThe best assessment method to gauge understanding is, and always has been, conversation.\nAll we need to do is pair assessment with regular conversation between qualified teacher and student to determine if personal comprehension is present. Not an interview, not an interrogation — conversation. Problem solving performance contexts are also great revealer of internalized knowledge and skill.\nChatGPT is a relative nonissue if your approach to assessment is at all human.\nIt’s only a problem when you’re trying to mechanize and dehumanized education. “Rigorous” does not mean “mechanical.” We are going to have to trust the professional, knowledge- and skill-assessing judgements of humans who already know and can do.\nEducation reverts to having more emphasis on apprenticeship and mentorship models, where the relationship itself is part of the learning process. \n(The “accountability!” cranks are gonna love that…)", ">\n\nI have a strong suspicion that discussions like this, while very interesting, will be obsolete long before any changes can actually be implemented in schools. In fact, I'm pretty sure schools will be gone entirely in the near future.\nAs of right now, you can be taught almost any subject by an exceptionally well-spoken, fast and infinitely patient teacher called GPT to a university level, if not higher. Try it right now - go ask GPT to explain the political situation that allowed Alexander the Great to conquer Persia, or ask it to explain the raytracing algorithm. If there's a part you don't understand, ask it to clarify. You'll be amazed how accessible it makes advanced topics.\nNow, how long before we have VR software with a realistic-looking AI teacher, with an AI-generated voice, who can do the same thing, but respond to students' voices and use body language and visual demonstrations? Five years?\nHow long after that before this tech is cheap, and of such high quality that sending your kids to school will be a worse education?\nNow in, say, 20 years, we could have an AI system that takes a DNA sample, analyses a students genotype to understand what subjects they will be naturally good at, what education approaches will be most successful, and continuously improves its model of the student's behavior by observing them. It crafts a decades-long education journey tailored to the individual, and accompanies them the entire way.\nTeachers, as far as they've existed so far, don't have a chance.", ">\n\nAre you trying to test someone or teach them?\nIf the latter, why do you care about cheating? This reminds me of the ol' teachers who used to restrict calculators because \"you won't always have a calculator with you.\"", ">\n\nYou forget that for 99% of homework students could just copy each other's work. Having the answers out in the world accessible is not a new problem. You just make homework a small part of the grades and you make sure students understand it's important to actually do it or they won't do well on the tests.", ">\n\nThere are so many people that can’t do the basic math examples you mentioned somewhere and they went to school at a time when there were no calculators.\nOn the other hand I was allowed to use calculators in school pretty much the moment I left elementary school and I am really quite good at math even without assistance.\nTool usage is one of humanities key features and trying to work against it instead of finding ways to incorporate new technology into school and life seems backwards.", ">\n\nIronically the teacher will have to use an AI to decipher the \"hand written\" assignments.", ">\n\nYou can't force people to learn.", ">\n\nWhat about teaching how to think rather than how to memorize? Just a thought 💭", ">\n\nThey need to get rid of homework, and have students do their work while they're at school. It's awful, they just pile it on, even if a class only has a little homework that day, there's like 6 or 7 classes so it's a nightmare for students. Seems like the only way to prevent cheating is have them do work in class, so I hope for the students sake, they do that.", ">\n\nI’ll throw my idea into the ring, though we’re still a few years off from this technology:\nWe should have students interact with AI tutors that can prompt them questions and point out details. Then they can collaborate on assignments, and the AI tutor can give feedback and suggest snippets. The AI can evaluate their work and their engagement with the material.", ">\n\nOne of Transformers main applications is in search. Ie you get a set of embeddings you can compare the pairwise distances between embedding and get a list of scores that tell you which embeddings are most similar to the input. \nEssentially tools like google are made to reduce the search space for a given query collect likely links and then rerank the most likely results. \nChatgpt basically does this in a more direct way of searching through a space of potential responses. Basically trained on a task to predict next token given the previous tokens or fill in a mask\nTransformers permeate everything students use from the recommendation algorithms on TikTok Facebook, YouTube to search systems in google. \nIn my opinion students should absolutely not be taught to fear these tools tho I do agree they be tested in constrained environments to challenge them. Current systems should not be used to learn unless you have a clear understanding and are willing to check every word and check your reasoning. Future systems will be much better though so this problem isn’t going anywhere. \nIf anything there should be a push to make these ideas more interpretable to a younger audience and give them the tools to navigate an increasingly complex market of ideas. They should be aware of the limitations and how when they use a piece of software their actions and the actions of those around them are influencing what they see next. \nIt should be used and taught with rigor. \nIt’s programming 2.0", ">\n\nDude no; \nChatGPT is the computer. \nDo you want to be the education system that banned the computer and then wondered why all the other education systems output modern tech workers, while your education system kept outputting chimney sweeps and car factory workers?", ">\n\nHW only exists to make students practice, and generally is worth less than 20% of the grade in a class. If a student chooses to use chat GPT to bypass it then that’s the student’s loss.\nUltimately exams are what schools use to evaluate a students knowledge and I don’t think that’s going to change anytime soon", ">\n\nThere are already programs that check if something was written by an AI or not. Also no student I know actually uses chatGPT for major assignments because chatGPT doesn’t know every text to ever be published so it doesn’t understand the context, and most of the time will just bullshit an answer that’s incorrect.\nEveryone I know that uses chatGPT for school do so for either for assignments so small and simple that it doesn’t make sense to quarantine, or they use it as a more advanced google that can answer questions more accurately than a search engine could, essentially just saving time.\n(most) students are using chatGPT largely as a productivity and time management tool rather than to cheat.", ">\n\nThis is like saying “in the age of calculators, the only way to ensure kids learn maths is to ban calculators in school”. If looked at correctly, chatgpt is an effect multiplier, learning just has to be rejigged to have kids learn to do things that they can’t simply ask chatgpt to do for them.", ">\n\nLess course work and more exams is the future in a world with chatGPT.", ">\n\nChatGPT will be a big no issue soon. I work in a research field and this was something we worried about last year. As of now there are multiple tools and even more being developed that catch the use of ChatGPT. There has been research published that list ChatGPT as a co-author, but for most research, and use by students, it will simply be forbidden and will easily be caught as well. The program does well but it has a particular style that can be caught. Again it will be a non-issue soon.", ">\n\nThis is like forbidding people to use a calculator because it can give you the result instant. A better way is to teach them how to use the calculator, because its here now and won't go away. Same with GPT. Children can learn way better/faster with ChatGPD if used correctly. Imaging having a private teacher for free which helps you learning every time of the day.", ">\n\nLet me ask you this. If ChatGPT could complete a students whole assignment, what would that student have learned from doing that assignment on their own that won’t simply be replaced with ChatGPT by a employer in the future?\nEven if ChatGPT doesn’t replace workers for a decade, why teach students skills that will inevitably be replaced and leave said students jobless in a decade?\nChatGPT won’t only be used in the workforce either. Linus Tech Tips has a video showing how ChatGPT can help people learn new skills and do troubleshooting on their own. If I remember correctly, he manages to completely build a pc by only strictly following what ChatGPT tells him to. It even managed to suggest the best parts for that computers specific use case. It was nowhere near perfect, but in the future it will get there.\nSince ChatGPT is such a useful tool in the workforce and at home, I think it’s crucial we teach students how to use it instead of banning them from it. Maybe students should be given a problem and tasked to use ChatGPT to find the solution or have students attempt to learn a new topic with ChatGPT. I’m not a teacher, I just thought of those examples of the top of my head. I’m sure qualified teachers could think of better assignments than me.\nI could see ChatGPT helping a mechanic diagnose an issue so the mechanic could spend more time fixing the problem rather than diagnosing and I can think of a few examples in other jobs as well where ChatGPT will help a worker be more efficient and save more time.\nI think, if anything, we’re setting students up for failure by not teaching them about these tools that will take over the workforce and help in everyday life.", ">\n\nYou’ll still have to pass a test. Relax.", ">\n\nIt “fairs” extremely well? Maybe some additional time spent observing ChatGPT could actually benefit some", ">\n\nThere’s just no way you can use ChatGPT to do all of your work for you and be successful at any moderately high level of academic pursuit. Not without learning the material yourself, and if you’ve done that, I don’t think it matters so much whether you used chatGPT and for what along the way.\nFrankly if you start our using chatGPT early in school, you won’t even be able to ask the right questions in the right way and include the necessary refinements to do more complex and demanding assignments down the road. \nAlso, tests are still a thing aren’t they? ChatGPT doesn’t help you perform in person in a monitored environment - not in a way that would allow you to skip learning the material. I don’t really get this aspect of your cmv. As long as tests don’t allow access to ChatGPT, anyone who didn’t learn the material is going to be exposed..", ">\n\nThere are already programs that detect ChatGPT writing.", ">\n\nThe children who want to cheat will always find a way to do so. It doesn’t matter how much you do to restrict it, it’ll just make them find new means of doing so. \nSource: I did GCSE’s in the UK, AP in the US. Trust, kids will cheat even in sterile environments. Especially if it’s a huge room and there are few moderators. A lot of us are scared of repercussions but those who aren’t won’t let anything stand in there way—region and proctoring be damned.", ">\n\nI require them to complete an outline first. Outline must be submitted to me before I take the essay. Google doc lets you see that they write it and when each sentence was written. It’s helped.", ">\n\nCHATGPT is a tool, and in some applications (not all), it can help students do their homework. Consider the calculator. Do students not need to learn formulas and critical thinking just because they can punch numbers into calculators?\nNo, math is still a skill that is valuable if for no other reason then because it trains your brain to solve problems.\nOne of the things that surprises me is that ChatGPT can use words and explain things to students even when a teacher is not available or when there isn’t one. we should consider this an educational opportunity rather than a disadvantage.\nThere are so many amazing things we humans can do when we simply have tools to help us. ChatGPT is no different.", ">\n\nYou can’t force people to live in the past. Chat GPT is here to stay. Education now needs to focus on teaching people how to use AI, and how to develop a skill that can’t be replaced by AI.", ">\n\nHow about getting students engaged in what they’re learning and excited to learn. Find what they’re good at and double down on it. Don’t make school a fucking quarantine bubble. Socialize, allow them to teach and learn from each other. Replace the potential for cheating with collaboration assignments in person. “Children will cheat if given the opportunity” is such horse shit. If somebody doesn’t know or wasn’t taught something well then yea they’re gonna look to get it right so they can obtain approval. How about teaching them so they won’t cheat??", ">\n\nThats not it. I don’t have an answer for you, but thats not it.", ">\n\nHow about just have the kids do a presentation on \"their\" report with Q&A at the end. They'll have no choice but to know the info.... which is the point.", ">\n\nWell, making an AI that detects if something was made by an AI shouldnt be hard", ">\n\nI wonder if anyone has tried training a machine to look at assignments and give a confidence interval of the assignment being either human or machine in origin.", ">\n\nYeah we call that stuff examns...", ">\n\nThe problem with your suggested approach is that it just reinforces the current failures of the education system. It doesn't actually teach us the skills that you will be able to use in the field. \n\nYou can look up formulas for physics and you can double check online for any coding questions. Chat gpt is a tool and I think forbidding students from using it will just be a disservice to them and everyone in the future. It's not going to go away any time soon so how about instead of teaching children to cheat more effectively, we teach them how to use chat gpt to its full potential? It can speed up so many tasks to such a degree that students will be able to recieve more advanced education in the time that was saved by using chat gpt", ">\n\nI mean, there are plenty of good reasons already said, but wouldn't it just be easy to cheat. You get home, ask Chat.gpt for a result, print it out. Bring it with you to the school quarantine, copy it into the computer. (Unless you would like a full strip search of the students upon entering, which is wrong in so many ways)", ">\n\nI could use this in my program all I wanted and pass courses with perfect scores, and at the end of my degree I’d have a licensure exam that I’d fail cause I didn’t learn anything.", ">\n\nGreat idea! While let's just ignore the real world and keep our heads in the sand. Let's also get rid of computers and ink pens and go back to stone and chisel!", ">\n\nInstead of asking students to write ...ask them to spot the mistakes and correct the essays.\nThat requires way more knowledge and mastership.", ">\n\nI feel like this is a modern day equivalent to saying that now that the internet is available at the family computer, students must complete their work entirely under supervision.\nAI is here and more that is better is coming and people need to learn how to integrate with it rather than fight it. It's going to take some jobs. Just like the cotton gin and steam drill took work from people who then immediately transitioned to other work that the machine couldn't do and to running to machine itself. People will need to run ChatGPT. Feed it, verify its output, clean it up and submit the report based on CGPT4.0's write up. Individuals need to know the material, sure, but we can't really keep students off the internet and trying to do so just wastes resources and makes teachers pull their hair out." ]
> Homeschool. Problem solved.	[ "/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^\| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.", ">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?", ">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.", ">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?", ">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.", ">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?", ">\n\nYou mean a grade?", ">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication", ">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.", ">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)", ">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.", ">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.", ">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.", ">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.", ">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?", ">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.", ">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.", ">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.", ">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.", ">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.", ">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.", ">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.", ">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.", ">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.", ">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.", ">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.", ">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.", ">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.", ">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use", ">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.", ">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.", ">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.", ">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.", ">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.", ">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.", ">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.", ">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).", ">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.", ">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.", ">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.", ">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.", ">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.", ">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.", ">\n\n\nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \n\nWhy? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it. \n\nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \n\nWhy? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? \nLet's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project. \n\nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.\n\nTotally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator.", ">\n\nFor the most part, knowledge workers perform a given amount of work in a given amount of hours, and the number of them hired by a company is TotalHoursNeeded/NumHoursPerEmployee. E.g. if you have 100 manyears of work to get done in a typical year, you employ 100 people.\nChat GPT isn't going to \"replace\" people wholesale, because as you say someone still needs to supervise it. But it looks to be on track to increase the productivity of programmers (can write a first draft of code and finds many of the bugs instantly). \nSame for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones. \nSo now the TotalNeeded is decreased by some percentage, let's say 10% to start. Now you only need 90 human programmers to do that same work. With 25% efficiency gain, you need 75. With 50%, 50. Etc. \nOr take translation jobs. Today, an editor spends roughly 3 minutes per word editing machine translated text, and 1 minute per word editing human-translated text. As long as editors are more expensive per hour than first translation people, it still makes sense much of the time to hire translators, because the software isn't free. \nBut the graph of machine translation \"efficiency\" is trending towards taking the same amount of time to edit as a human translator. As soon as that's hit, there's literally no reason to hire human translators, only editors. \nAnd if the editing time goes down to 30 seconds/word because of further AI assistance to the editor, you only need half as many of those.", ">\n\nThere is currently two better solutions being worked on - one of which is already being used to some degree. \nThe first is ChatGPT developers themselves making moves to make AI written works to be identified by \"watermark\" or similar. I don't thi k this one has taken effect at all yet. \nAnother is by a separate dev team that allows teachers to use software to determine the amount of an essay, for example, that is written by AI what the likelihood of any one sentence or paragraph to have been written by AI. This allows the teachers to use discretion when determining if the student used the AI in a way that they find acceptable or not. This way instead kf running from the scary AI educators can actually utilize tyhe AI with students to help them develop their writing and other communications.", ">\n\nWhat about kids with transportation issues? When I was in school I knew kids that drove almost an hour each way to get there. I certainly couldn’t have asked my parents to drop everything to take me all the way to school so I could do my homework if I forgot. Bus schedules? Do you think schools want to waste more money by burning more gas for extra routes? I understand where you’re coming from, but for a fair amount of children—especially in poorer, more rural areas—that getting to school and back is such a delicate balancing act that such a thing would just punish them.", ">\n\nI've seen a few key things from academics testing out ChatGPT (I have not signed up myself):\n\nIt tends to produce confident, convincing nonsense. It doesn't actually understand what it's writing about, and I hear it shows.\nIt makes up citations. Real authors in the field, real journals... but made-up titles. Things like that, since, again, it doesn't actually understand citations.\n\nThis suggests that, for assignments requiring the demonstration of genuine, in-depth understanding, and not merely the ability to summarize facts, ChatGPT will fail.\nA similar example that you bring up in the comments is programming cheat sheets into calculators - but for well-designed engineering exams (including the licensure exams, at least in the US), cheat sheets are fine and often either allowed or provided. A well-designed exam tests the ability to apply principles, not knowledge of equations, so a cheat sheet is harmless, or even allows the exam to work better (since people aren't distracted with memorizing equations).", ">\n\nThere are three criticisms that I have of this approach. \n\n\nShould we not teach to the environment that we live in? Yes, education often imposes arbitrary constraints like time tests but for research and reports why not let people use and work around all resources? If you can work around chat gpt to work efficiently, then do it. You learn what it can and can’t do and how to use it effectively as a tool. \n\n\nCan chatGPT on it’s own actually write a good essay? From what I have seen it can pull together a few sources. It can generally write fluff based on other things that it has seen. But it struggles to write analysis. It can’t interrogate a source or make value judgements. It could be useful for doing some filler or providing ideas but if to do an actual report, I think it would be insufficient. \n\n\nAn assignment that can be done using chatgpt is probably boring. Here I am writing an essay for no reason other than I find it interesting to discuss this topic. Perhaps, we arent giving students interesting enough assignments or we are overloading them to the point that they don’t have the time to engage? If chatGPT turns out to be an issue maybe it’s more of an indictment of the structures and norms of education.", ">\n\n\n\nhomework in the form of essays, take home tests, coding assignments, would be completed on school grounds. \n\n\nCongratulations, you've invented the \"cram school\".\nI'd recommend reading through your post again and actually thinking about the things you've said. Because essentially, you're merely advocating for the wholesale elimination of homework and for education outside of that to remain totally unchanged. It's almost literally, \"Make the school day 30% longer\".\nMy solution to the \"problem\" of students potentially using ChatGPT to cheat on homework: I don't think you need a hilariously convoluted system of homework \"boiler rooms\" redolent of national security apparatus, that requires schools to adopt ruinously expensive and disruptive technological and administrative changes.\nIt would be sufficient if we institute a system whereby teachers are encouraged to, let's say... \"test\" their students, whether by regular written exams or by talking to them in what I'll call \"classes\", to ensure they understand the material they've been assigned to learn.\nThis method ensures that students cannot use AI homework bots to coast through classes (since they'll literally be found out the very next class), and has the added benefit of not adding three hours to every teacher's day.", ">\n\nWhat about pen and ink?", ">\n\narguably I can just copy a ChatGPT output by hand. So I think that is a first level measure, but not a complete solution.", ">\n\nIt's a better solution than prison just because the curriculum can't keep up with technology.\nWhen calculators arrived on everyone's phone and everyone's pocket did you advocate for the same solution? Unlikely, so why only now with this system?", ">\n\nWell I did and I was. When I was studying engineering in the 80s we routinely could not arrive at exams with a calculator. Even then calculators were programmable enough to allow students to write cheat sheets in calculator memory.\nIt forced us to memorize equations, principals of engineering, and independent thinking. I’m a better engineer because I did.", ">\n\nSo you're what, almost 60? And you think what's best for children is to be like you? Don't you think you may be a bit out of touch?\nAlso, your view was about K12 students, not engineering students.", ">\n\nNo. As I replied, leaning on tools as a crutch all your life will limit your ability and function as a human. For example, you could argue that basic math isn’t necessary. As matter of fact that was an argument years ago with the advent of calculators.\nHowever, humans should be able to exist and functions without a digital crutch. You should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator. You should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google. There are basic elements of duration necessary since we are all still wet grey matter.", ">\n\n\nYou should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator\n\nBut why?\n\nYou should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google\n\nAgain, why?\nWhere do you get your \"should\" from?\nI have basically all human knowledge in my hand, every equation or conversion I'll ever need day to day, even every language I'll likely ever encounter. Why shouldn't I leave my brain free to think about what it wants and to use my incredible resource as and when it's needed?\nDo you envision some Saw-like situation where you're locked to a wall and need to solve maths equations at pain of death?", ">\n\nThe less you use your brain the less likely your body is to maintain it. Our body functions through a use or lose it principle. Just look people who lose movement function/muscle just by being bedridden for a long time. Our brain is not different.\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.", ">\n\nIs wasting resources on process you can deletage outside not using your brain? You free up that space to put to what you decide is important.\n\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.\n\nThe weakest man with a gun can take out the strongest bodybuilder.", ">\n\nAnd if you decide Tik tok and Netflix are important? How do you think that will affect the cognitive ability of kids?\nI didn't mention strength nor physical strength. And even then the strongest man with a gun will probably take out the weakest man with a gun.(An actual fair comparison)", ">\n\nCouldn't chatgpt (or somesuch AI) be asked \"Hey - did you write this?\" and nip this sort of thing in the bud?", ">\n\nNo, Chat GPT doesn't remember everything it's said, the potential things it could say are huge and even if someone wrote something that Chat GPT might say, it could be a coincidence.", ">\n\nWell, strike that idea then.\nStill though - there must be some way to use AI to deal with this. \"set a thief to catch a thief\" and all that.", ">\n\nChat GPT (and most generative AIs) use GANs to generate content. \nIn laymen's terms (and extremely simplified as it's above my level of understanding) a GAN is 2 AI systems competing against each other, a creator AI that creates content and a checker AI that decides if the content was genuine or made by the other AI. \nSo any automated way to tell if it's AI generated can be built into the checker AI in future versions and the creator AI will learn to avoid whichever features the checker AI is spotting.", ">\n\nChatGPT is just another mechanism for reducing the need for labor, and it's not going away. \nChildren will need to be educated in both how to make effective use of it (for as long as it's not sufficient to completely eliminate mental labor), and also in the ethics of not using it. Always forcing them to write in airgapped places isn't going to do that, it just makes them resent it. \nAlso: essay writing on a scale needed to really learn long-form writing is not very amenable to doing in an airgapped classroom, because honestly we're not using dead-tree sources of information anymore already, so doing their research pretty much has to include doing it on line. \nBut really: laborious manual long-form essay writing is going to go the way of penmanship and looking things up in a library as an unneeded skill very quickly. We need children to adjust to that reality of the modern world rather than pretending it will go away. \nPeople are still needed (for now) to do the important part of writing essays without doing the laborious bit that ChatGPT automates anyway: deciding what to write, and editing it into a convincing and well-written form. \nForcing kids to spend a lot of time learning how to write the basic bulk part of essays is a lot like teaching them how to make buggy-whips in shop class: a pointless exercise. \nIt would be better to give them all prewritten ChatGPT essays and have them learn the limitations and capabilities.", ">\n\nIs ChatGPT really that much more effective than just grabbing things off Wikipedia? I was asking it things about elections and it was just Wikipedia from two years ago", ">\n\nThe answer is NEVER to limit technology. It’s to teach the new generation how to use that technology to achieve the same goal.\nIt’s pointless to ban computers and teach the memorization of dates in history class. It’s much more productive to teach online research skills so that if an individual needs to know the date of a particular moment in history, they can reliably Google it.\nChatGPT is the same. It renders writing essays as pointless, and it necessitates the teachers to adapt to new teaching styles, such as teaching the skills on how best to manipulate ChatGPT to return the information you need.", ">\n\nI was banned from using programming calculators when I studied engineering in the 80s during exams. It forced the students to all be on the same level playing field and forced us to actually know the equations, their applications, and the processes of whatever engineering course I was taking.\nIt made us better engineers.", ">\n\nHow does handicapping you make you a better engineer? If I put you and an engineer trained with technology in the same room together, who do you think would accomplish the task faster?", ">\n\nThe handicapped engineer, easily. The point of forcing students to actually learn the material is so that they understand how to reason about the underlying processes when they need to troubleshoot something going wrong, and understand the tradeoffs between approaches and how to select the best one for the task. \nOnce you understand things deeply you don't actually need training in doing things quickly because it's immediately intuitive how to apply a technological process to save time. The guy that leaned heavily on technology is basically fucked if he has to use a technique or software that he didn't specifically train on since he doesn't have a good foundation to abstract from. It would be more appropriate to call this person a technician.", ">\n\nThe purpose of calculators is to do the menial part of the work, not to solve whole processes. The engineer that learned with calculators likely knows how to select the right process to solve a problem, but uses the calculator to do the math faster and with fewer errors.", ">\n\nAt the college level, we’re not talking about tools to add and multiply. We’re talking about tools like Wolfram Alpha that do entire symbolic manipulations for you. If I took a calculus class and on all the assignments used Wolfram Alpha to find derivatives, do you think I would have learned anything?\nThat is what ChatGPT is doing for essays", ">\n\nThere are things called pencil and paper.", ">\n\nAs I said, this is the first line defense. However as I already commented to another user. I can simply hand copy ChatGPT output. Essentially not doing my own independent research, writing, coding, and studying.", ">\n\nWhy don't you consider that research? \nThe first source was the best. It's incredibly efficient research IMO.", ">\n\nThe idea of tool removal has always been flawed. From calculators to chat GPT and beyond. If your test is so flimsy that a simple tool invalidates it then the test is poorly built. Test shouldn't be simple busywork tasks, they should require thinking, problem solving, complex thought. If it's just a game of memorization that can be cheated by answers on a paper, you've built a bad test.\nover memorization (which is what our current school systems teach) is not only unhelpful, but also harmful. We live in an era of wikipedia being a reliable source, of vast access to tools both online and phsycial. We should be teaching kids they should do the work but with the help of those tools, not despite them.\nThe main issue with your argument is that based on what you've said, i can assume you think the current school system is a good one but so many studies have shown that at least here in the US, the school systems are some of the worst in the world. It's this memorize, ignore tools, singular focus mentality that plays such a big role.\nIf we were more creative with education, incorporating tool utilization into the learning process, we'd likely have a major improvement to our educational successes. I could go on about how the education system prefers certain kinds of students over others, and how many students are left behind simply because they don't learn like other kids and are therefore punished, but I won't. All I'll say is that more restrictions on how and what kids learn isn't going to help them learn more or better.\nand in 15 years when chat GPT is a part of daily life in every single company on the planet in some way or another (which I'm beyond certain it will be), kids who were taught how to properly utilize it will have just such a huge advantage in the workforce over those who weren't", ">\n\nRather than attempt to find ways to prevent new technology from interfering with existing pedagogy, shouldn't we review and revise pedagogy as new technology develops? \nIf a chat AI program can write these things, what is the point of having humans repeatedly do the same work? We don't expect people to use an abacus when doing math, or limit their research to what's in the library card catalogue, or require printed paper publications as essay resources; we adapted to the calculator, and to the internet and search engines. So too should we adapt to things like ChatGPT, not by trying to pretend it doesn't exist, but by finding ways to incorporate it into a more holistic approach to learning.\nRather than chain kids to an airgapped room on school grounds outside of school hours to do homework that's of dubious educational value in the first place, we should take this as an opportunity to refocus schooling on in-class engagement and direct instruction. ChatGPT and programs like it are showing us yet another thing we as humans can outsource to our technology, so why struggle to do things in a more difficult and inefficient way?", ">\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\nIn addition, AI is only as good as the data it is fed. You must still be able to do the work on your own to analyze when the AI is giving valid outputs (garbage in, garbage out). This is especially true, when AI runs the risks of being owned or operated by those with a specific agenda. Can you imagine the trouble that would result if people relied on AI to determine who to vote for, but someone was able to pay the operators to have the AI promote them?\nRelying on AI to do our work for us is a distillation of an appeal to authority fallacy on a large scale (if the AI says it, it must be true).", ">\n\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\n\nThis is something I worry about A LOT when it comes to AI. Our collective understanding of the subjects that we usually classify as \"the humanities\" is constantly evolving as we learn more, and especially as a more diverse set of people are allowed to study, research and put forth opinions and arguments.\nImagine if students were outsourcing all their history, psychology, sociology and philosophy homework to a chatbot with a 1950s understanding of those subjects.\nImagine doctors outsourcing psych patient diagnoses to a chatbot with the same understanding.\nOn an arguably less \"serious\" but still critically important moral and political topic, imagine if all/most videogame art was outsourced to an AI engine with a 1990s sensibility for female characters. Same for all kinds of representation and diversity.\nHow about politics and political science in general... ha!\nEtc, etc etc.\nIt is NOT the case that we already have discovered all the true answers to the big questions, and we can merely turn to a \"knowledge calculator\" like ChatGPT to spit out the truth.\nEven if AI can pretty accurately reflect the discourse of the day, as it is currently understood and accepted, our collective knowledge and culture will stagnate if we do not actively participate in developing it, and we will all pay the price for that.", ">\n\nThese are all moralistic arguments that ultimately don’t mean anything.", ">\n\nI would say they are more epistemic arguments, which do matter greatly in the context of education (which is what the op was referring to).", ">\n\nAre any of these things mentioned actually realistic concerns? Someone is going to train an AI bot to generate 90s female art characters with big tits?\nNo. Lol and even if someone did, who cares?", ">\n\nConsidering how many people believe obviously fake stories that have no supporting evidence (and in spite of contrary evidence), yes, I believe they are very real concerns.\nIf an AI says we should use Brawndo in farming because its got what plants crave (electrolytes), we should probably be able to justify it with reasoning beyond \"the AI says so.\"", ">\n\nWho is suggesting we do anything “just because an AI said so”? \nDo you read books and think everything in it is true “because the book says so”?", ">\n\nHow do you determine if what the book/ai said is false?\nYou would typically do it through a process of research and discovery.\nPeoples' ability to do research and discovery will be greatly diminished if we rely on AI to do those things for us (which is what the previous posters were suggesting).\nTherefore, reliance on AI will lead to us losing the ability to discern if the results of what the AI is saying is correct.", ">\n\nWhat? Lol that doesn’t make any sense at all. \nIt is not like if we use AI then all previous knowledge is simply forgotten or lost. It’s all still there.", ">\n\nForcing homework at school makes that \"not homework\", and this approach has never worked. You cant reject change, it never works. Every time there has been a game changing event, people adapted. Those who tried to reject change disappeared. Horse carriages disappeared from roads because something else replaced it. Some people supposedly rejected progress, but they are lying to themselves, they still use modern tech or services at some point.\nAnyway, the change is here, and it made essays irrelevant. Time to find another way to test people skills. \nGive it a little time though. ChatGPT costs a ginormous amount of money to run and will not stay free for long either.", ">\n\nIt's not just ChatGPT, the actual innovation is not the interface but lies in algorithms that can recreate natural language of similar quality with smaller data samples. There are also OpenSource datasets like ThePile, etc. so even if OpenAI moves to a paid model (and they will, quickly. You can already sign up to be first in line for the API), there will be other free providers.", ">\n\nHaving coded AIs, I disagree. ChatGPT is a regular trained AI. The novelty is the scale of the operation, and the fact there is a public API.\nNo one ever spent that much money on resources to run and train an AI publicly. I am pretty sure google has done something similar with user data sets to make their search engine and general ecosystem.\nI wish there was a way to have algorithms working with smaller data sets and produce similar results, but it kind of does not work that way.", ">\n\nThere are already tools to identify ChatGPT generated texts. Such tools will improve as another use of literally the same technology.\nJust as teachers submit essays for identifying plagiarism, teachers will submit essays for identifying AI-generated text. \nFurther, a focus could change from grading students on what they know to grading students' ability to ask meaningful, content-based questions about the subject. After all, knowing facts isn't particularly valuable as a skill. Integrating facts and discovering valuable questions is still something that remains a uniquely human skill. And is where people will continue to add value as AI becomes more advanced.", ">\n\nStudents have always been able to 'cheat' on work done outside the classroom, by copying or somehow getting others to do their work for them, even before the internet. Yes with more advanced modern technology it is easier but this has always been a concern. \nAs regular learning environments like supervised classrooms are already 'quarantined' in the way you descibe you are fundementally just suggesting an increase in learning hours as a supplement to homework. This has been suggested by many for various reasons but it would overall cuase more issues than it fixes. It increases work load on teachers and administrators, stretching already thin educational budgets, and forces increased mental strain on children. It would limit their ability to do other recreational and out of ciriculum activities. This would be disruptive and controlling when the quantity of teaching and learning time that children recive is already considered sufficiant for a good education.", ">\n\nHell the only thing stopping me from using ChatGPT regularly for my work now is that it's always at capacity.", ">\n\nApply tests that are hand written, doesnt matter how a person obtains the knowledge, actually learning the subject is most important thing.", ">\n\nThere is no amount of ChatGPT that could influence a good old oral exam where the teacher evaluates the understanding via a little chat.", ">\n\nSo tired of this view. We shouldn’t be fighting technology. Teach kids to use the resources they have to find answers. It’s such a waste of 12 years of school, teaching kids to memorize facts and follow rules. \nInstead, every test should be open book and reward the best answers. Ask the kids to show their work or explain their thought process so we reward understanding of a topic rather than memorization of steps or text.", ">\n\n20 years ago, there were already homework communities and learn groups. Even from the publishers of school books and with free access to tutors. Ok, they didnt do the final homework for me, but gave me a great starting point.\nBeing the kid who transcribes a wiki page was already stupid back then when others could call you out:\nBut I guess the actual problem is lack of digital literacy with teachers, they're always 5-10 years behind.", ">\n\nIf you are testing skills that can be done by free tools on the internet, then you are testing irrelevant skills.\nThe best way to educate kids is to test for skills they need, not skills they objectively don't.\nI was able to witness a couple of universities adapt to tests during quarantine, and follow reports on how the new methods would be used going forward.\nThe results where thus:\nMass offline testing is incredibly cost efficient (one examiner per ~300 students), but the tests results are a poor indicator of real world performance.\nOne to One testing is incredibly expensive, but can, when done right, test actual understanding and performance.\nBoth will be useful, of course. Mass testing is most useful when used in a way that students aren't incentivized to cheat, such as when framed as practice.", ">\n\nOne of the upsides of needing to prevent this kind of tech from cheating assignments is that teachers should focus on having students be able to do their homework at school. (As a former teacher, we were trying to do this already- no more than 15 min of homework per class). \nI dont think we need to do quite what you say. We just need to limit outside electronics and have in-person classrooms or computer labs with programs designed to be AI-proof. \nI have ALWAYS believed that cell phones/internet watches should be stored in school lockers (at most) and never allowed anywhere else on campus during the school day. If anyone needs to contact the students they contact the desk who relays their message/other need. Many schools already do this.", ">\n\n∆\nI agree with this. It would help.", ">\n\nThank you!", ">\n\nThat is utterly pointless.\nThere is no reason to limit the available tools.\nThis just reminds me of the entire \"you won't have a calculator wherever you go\" argument.\nSchool should instead put a focus on responsibly using available tools.", ">\n\nAnd if students choose to use them irresponsibly, what should schools do?\nAnd can you please define what constitutes responsible use? Because despite knowing about plagiarism, people still copy and paste from the internet. Perfect abstinence is easier than perfect moderation after all.", ">\n\nJust return to hand written essays and have more oral exams.", ">\n\n∆l\nActually of all comments having oral exams compliments my post and I agree with you. Enjoy the delta.", ">\n\nIn a Faraday cage.", ">\n\nIf children can just generate work with ChatGPT, it simply shows that children are not being taught anything valuable. (Once ChatGPT responses can be generated in almost unlimited amounts at very low cost, it necessarily means those responses are of low value)\nInstead shouldn't we be teaching children to provide more valuable outcomes that ChatGPT can't replicate?", ">\n\nBeing able to do on your own what ChatGPT does with access to an immense amount of data and processing power is valuable. The actual writing isn't valuable, obviously, but it would be silly to expect it to be. It's just a side effect of practice, you spend time making things of little or no value to build up the skills you'll need to make something that actually matters. That's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\nI think you'd be hard pressed to teach a class of children to outperform ChatGPT in writing without ever asking them to write something that could also be done via AI. What would that even look like?", ">\n\n\nThat's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\n\nIt is a problem. That is why I hated math class until 2nd year of university.", ">\n\nDid you start discovering novel math results in your second year of university, or was that just the point at which you first encountered problems you found interesting, despite the fact that someone else had already solved them before? Thinking back the class you didn't hate, do you think it should be removed if someone can construct an AI to give all the answers you gave?", ">\n\nThis is only a method for evaluating students, it doesn't do anything to educate them.\nChatgpt is potentially a great tool for education but trying to find complex ways around it for homework is pointless. When testing fact retention is required using school/university computers with no web browsing makes sense. For any other test or situation it's a tool that might be used.", ">\n\nI understand OPs concern. That said, I do not think you can create true quarantine for a multitude of reasons. \nThe biggest one is probably time. I worked through high school and university. Because I lived in the middle of nowhere it was about a 30 min drive to high school and then an hour to uni. Having to stay at these quarantine zones to complete assignments would have been hell on my schedule, car, and wallet. \nYou said it yourself, if someone is going to cheat, they will cheat. If I had to do the work in a quarantine zone, what exactly stops me from doing the actual work on my computer at home, printing it all out, and then just writing that into the computer at the quarantine zone? Unless you want to try having students write an entire essay in their hour long class? There has to be a point where they go home and then this falls apart.", ">\n\nThere are already lots of ways to cheat in homework and mostly our steps to deal with that amount to the honour system, and by university level, automated plagiarism detection (which can be quite easily avoided). The point you \"won't argue\" that people will cheat if given the opportunity is probably the actual crux of what's wrong with your suggestion and the part that needs a big [citation needed]. Concluding that the majority of people are fundamentally dishonest is a big assumption to handwave away. \nIf you want an education, cheating is stupid. Ultimately you might get a paper qualification out of it but you'll have actually learned nothing - you won't hold up long against someone who has done it properly when you actually have to apply the skills. Or if you do, then the assignments weren't that crucial to the learning in the first place.", ">\n\nMany of the things I learned in school were largely irrelevant. I couldn't use a calculator to do long division. After I passed those early elementary school years I never did long division again. I wouldn't even argue learning the long division algo is mandatory. It's nice to have learnt it I guess, but I spent way too many hours on it. I can see learning fundamentals of essay writing, etc, are great, but why can't we just evolve to learn more effective things in life? ChatGPT should be used as a tool, not viewed as a detriment.", ">\n\nIt'd suggest that the best way to educate them is to embrace ChatGBT and teach them to use it well. Your method is a bit like teaching kids to do math without calculators or accounting without excel or financial software. There is some value, but it runs out very quickly and you're at a social and competetive disadvantage for taking some archane principled approach to education that is more of a defense of \"how we used to do it\".\nI'm old enough to remember when using a word processor was sometime forbidden for reasons of fairness - that seems entirely disconnected now from doing good work and it's almost hard to envision the thought process of those who thought everything should be hand written for students. \nIsn't the kid who is amazing at utilizing tools like ChatGBT going to do much better in the world than the one who does not? Your idea of \"proper education\" would easily regress back to needing to do all subjects scrawled in dirt with sticks and grunted in non-standardized language.", ">\n\nOR, chatgpt will be a great boon to the entire education system:\nIncreased accessibility: ChatGPT and other AI-powered systems can provide education to individuals who otherwise would not have access to it, due to geographical, financial, or other barriers.\n\nPersonalized learning: ChatGPT can provide personalized education experiences based on each student's strengths, weaknesses, and learning style.\n\n24/7 availability: ChatGPT can operate 24/7, providing students with access to education at any time, anywhere, which can be especially beneficial for those with demanding schedules or for individuals in remote areas.\n\nScalability: ChatGPT can provide education to a large number of students simultaneously, which could help to address the shortage of teachers and resources in some areas.\n\nCost-effectiveness: ChatGPT can be a more cost-effective option for providing education compared to traditional methods, as it does not require physical classrooms or teachers.\n\nImproved student engagement: ChatGPT can provide interactive, engaging learning experiences that can hold students' attention and foster deeper learning.\n\n--Source: ChatGPT", ">\n\nThere a lots of places where texts and exams are “open book”. The questions have to be written differently, and the point is that you’re not testing someone’s ability to memorize, but rather their ability to understand. This is a more difficult test to write, so in theory AI could force education to improve since everyone would a virtual tutor with them at all times.", ">\n\nI'm a teacher and I've been thinking a lot about this the last couple months. Changes within the education system/curriculum/syllabus/retraining of teachers will take far too long to keep up with the ease of access to, and success of, chatgpt and AI in general. \nThe only solution moving forward both short and long term is to embrace it, there is no stopping it now anyway and if we don't all want to be out of a job in 5 years we need to - \n- demonstrate feasible/moral/ethical use of such tools\n- create more opportunities for collaborative learning/hands-on/problem solving tasks and ones that increase communication skills between peers. \nHow this applies to each individual, specific task will vary and must require a lot of creativity and trial and error, but I think relying too heavily on your department of education to handle this (or most 'boots on the ground' problems) will ultimately only degrade a students experience and ability for learning.", ">\n\nI'm with you on what you're trying to accomplish. I just don't know that it's the \"best\" way. \nFor instance, how is homework performed in school superior to trusting the kids to learn the material, which would then be tested by oral exam? And yes, I do believe that asking a student to verbally explain a topic is a really good way to gauge mastery.", ">\n\nThere is not a hope in hell that we'll go back to hand written stuff. That's not how technology works. As the music companies. There are better ways to show you know a subject, for sure, than the current out of-date ones. That's for sure. Have you ever taken an on-line exam?", ">\n\nI argue to let them use chatGPT as it will be their future. This is similar to my generations \"you'll never walk around with a calculator so learn math.\" The future children will grow into a society where work means utilizing AI tech to help them thrive. If chatGPT helps them write an essay, and it's good, it means they're using resources. I agree, however, that we should supplement this with actual reading and writing.", ">\n\nI would argue that most of time that ChatGPT and similar technologies is going to be an issue is in 8-12 grade and college.\nThis technology is not going away, and it's only going to improve. Personally I would treat it like calculators, audio books and spell check.\nTech kids how to use the technology properly. Sure it's somewhat handy to calculate numbers in your head, but having the ability to do math in your head does not give you much of an advantage in today's world and not being able to doesn't hurt you much. But it's still critical to know formulas and how to peace together algebraic statements and word problems. \nKnowing how to spell properly is less important than knowing proper word usage - most times you're writing something it can be spell-checked in real time. Sure it's \"terrible that today's kids...\" don't know how to spell... but it's not going to affect their career. \nEnter ChatGPT - same thing. Should I spend the time to write a white paper on the changing advertising landscape to alert my boss about the a potential seismic shift in advertising revenue, or should I ask ChatGPT to write it? As a user I have to understand its limits and potential copywrite issues, but even more importantly how to verify that what it writes is correct and targeting the right audience. Is data from before 2020 going to be recent and accurate enough for my thesis? How do I supplement the discussion with real-world data? \nThis is our new reality. We should be learning how to use the tools properly, not trying to figure out to lock it down (which frankly makes as much sense as locking down the use of calculators or spell check).", ">\n\nI think there are already apps in place that are able to detect AI generated text (Read this article).\nAlso, I think a better method would be to simply have a database of ChatGPT (could be encrypted) generated text and make it available to already existing software that is use to detect plagiarism (this is just an exemple amongst many)", ">\n\nFrankly I don’t think high schoolers and below should be given homework or tests at all. One learns magnitudes better through exploration as opposed to mindless repetition. Engage with these kids intellectually, make them free thinking Athenians, not bags of knowledge of which they have no idea how to use.\nDoes it not surprise anyone that we train people for over a decade in intellect yet hardly have any intellectuals?", ">\n\nI would argue that society would be better off spending resources on teaching children how to use this tool effectively. Knowing how to get the right answer is what matters in this world.", ">\n\nThen answer this: Well why learn math at all? Seriously.\nWhy learn he concept of subtraction let alone division? I could and society has argued that with the advent of digital calculators. \nYet we learn it. \nLater we use calculators to take the mundane and already known processes to the next level. We abstract away the mundane. \nAs a EE having worked and am working on products you may be using right now to read this, when I develop new silicon and chips I don’t break out Karnaugh maps and lay down circuit using a T square and stencils of gates. But I sure the hell know what I’m doing and expect the tools to do for me. \nTeaching fundamentals of reading, writing, arithmetic, essays, research are just that fundamental.", ">\n\nI’d argue that the vast majority don’t need anything beyond basic math anyways. \nGo ask the average adult if they know the quadratic equation and what it means and you’d probably be disappointed.", ">\n\nChatGPT is here to stay, you'd better advocate for teaching people how to make the most of it and use it wisely instead of pretending it doesn't exist.\nOne of my favourite teachers always told students to use the best tools there are.", ">\n\nI think it depends completely on the topic. In my field of study, it’s fairly easy to come up with term paper assignments that the bot would be useless for. \nLooking back at the paper I wrote last year, I don’t see how any current bot could have helped, as it isn’t able to read or summarize specific sources (yet?).\nAn example of the type of assignments we get is “Discuss the role of state capacity in x and x conflict in light of (specific research paper)‘s dimensions of state capacity - do your findings confirm the findings of (authors), why or why not?\nThis way of combining literature made it difficult even for me to be on top of it, as there were no sources that had attempted this exact combination - it has to be original. \nAlso, I find it’s the best way to learn, because you have to rely on your own judgement and there are no shortcuts, even asking the professor was unhelpful as he wasn’t too familiar with the details.", ">\n\nThis is not the best way.", ">\n\n\nThese homework rooms would have Internet connected computers for use but access to ChatGPT would be filtered and blocked.\n\nThis wouldn't be feasible, there's far too many roundabout ways to still access ChatGPT. Security measures like domain filtering are just unproductive games of whack-a-mole. \nEdit: removed all the other stuff I wrote, as those points have already been mentioned in previous top-level comments.", ">\n\nHomework shouldn’t be the go-to method of “education” to begin with. Imo Universities should focus on the integral part of education: the lectures. Tools like chatgpt can help student who are actually interested in a subject to learn more easily about it, but whether students actually learn anything or not from a class won’t change regardless of if work is authentic or copied from an AI\nSource: I’m a college student and have had experience in both supervised environments where we had to do work without the use of computers/phones and solely-online environments where many students cheated", ">\n\nWhile this could work, it is not necessarily the best way in terms of accessibility and of learning in general. \nFirst, students with ADHD and certain other conditions may not necessarily be the able to be productive at all times, or at the specific time they have to work on those computers, especially if those computers are not in an environment ideal to that specific person. It would also not be very feasible to give students enough time on these computers to complete the bigger assignments and essays. \nSecond, while ChatGPT is quite advanced, it simply works by looking at language patterns and often gets factual details incorrect. For example, with bigger coding problems, it tries to import modules that do not exist or call on functions that it has not defined. In literature, it cannot analyze texts on much more than a surface level. I will admit it can use secondary sources for textual analysis, however, it is unable to come up with a clear thesis on its own. \nAdditionally, take-home tests can be just as easily cheated on using a normal Google search, and usually test thinking skills rather than understanding and knowledge. \nFinally, essay-writing and other types of assignments are generally not ideal for learning as they are only one type of skill, and university professors are recognizing this. Not only do they not work for all learning styles, but they are only used so commonly because of tradition. University professors are structuring assignments around ways that are innovative enough that ChatGPT is unable to work on them. Along with requiring specific readings which the AI might not have access to, and citing of all sources (which has always been a requirement that the AI might trip up on), they are also going away from the traditional essay format into others. For example, I am studying literature, a relatively essay-heavy field, and in my past few courses I have been asked to analyze comics (which the AI cannot read), edit other people’s essays and articles (from past courses), create a mock syllabus or lesson plan with justifications for each reading, and create annotated bibliographies as a stepping stone to an essay. All of these not only require different skills and encourage different types of learning and research but are quite difficult for an AI to do. \nAll in all, while your suggestion is great, the very nature of the AI and the fact that it exists at all is perhaps a sign that the best course of action is to rework the way we think about evaluation. After all, if an evaluation is such that an AI can complete it without the ability to actually think (it works by using observed language patterns), then perhaps the evaluation is not ideal.", ">\n\nI bet teachers and people thought the same thing about calculators when they came out or 1990s internet. AI bots like chat GPT are just a tool.", ">\n\nAll this effectively does is train kids to accomplish goals of a type that do not exist in the real world in a situation they will never realistically encounter. A better goal is adjusting testing criteria to account for this.\nThere might be very specific sets of knowledge for which rote memorization is appropriate, and for those, the air gapped testing may be appropriate. But I believe those are the exception rather than the rule. By and large, teaching kids to effectively utilize the tools that will be available to them is what we should be doing.", ">\n\nImagine learning where the only books are hand written.\nThe printing press took out a huge amount of repetitive labor in the learning process.\nAI/ChatGPT stands a good chance of removing a huge amount knowledge labor which stands between an idea and the end product. Learning to use the AI to best effect the Idea->End Product Chain is more important than worrying about memorizing formulae we will likely never need to remember. \nThe effort to restrict ChatGPT is just education system worrying about their Cheese Being Moved.", ">\n\nThis just doesn't make any sense to me. You're arguing that we shouldn't allow students to use tools they would have at their disposal in a real working environment, and for what? Why wouldn't you want students to use every tool at their disposal? How exactly is handicapping them helping them to understand the coursework?\nA much better approach would be to fundamentally alter how we teach to better prepare them for the workforce. Encouraging collaboration and creative problem solving skills is much more practical and effective.", ">\n\nChatGPT may pass the Bar, but I highly doubt it will replace lawyers or other professionals. \nThe whole point of credentialing is to drive accountability. Anyone can study the law and cite precedent without a law degree. Actually representing a client in a court of law requires oversight and knowledge. ChatGPT isn't perfect - it will make mistakes from time to time. So who is responsible when it makes a mistake? When is a client (who is not familiar with the law) supposed to know that a mistake has been made on their behalf? For this reason, until ChatGPT is literally perfect you're always going to need a credentialed professional to review the output.\nFor the record, I think ChatGPT is wonderful. But it's a tool that people will use, not a full-fledged replacement for professionals. My employer (a Fortune 500 company) has already rejected its use for internal projects. IT has the website blocked.", ">\n\nThe kids that are educated without its use will fall behind in business when faced with kids that are using it to its fullest extent.\nYou've successfully made an argument for people to succeed in a test that is worthless in the real world. Its parameters don't match.", ">\n\nThe best way to educate children is to teach them skills and strategies that will actually serve them in the workplace of the future. \nChatGPT already has reached the point of replacing humans (See Buzzfeed news). If ChatGPT can take the test or do the homework then what value is that education going to be to these students? Especially older students will quickly see rote memorization as a waste of time and so yes they probably will cheat if they have the opportunity. Trying to force these things to be “learned” and prove that knowledge by brute force banning things is going to be a costly uphill battle.", ">\n\nWhat if we modify how essays are written by students, by asking them to include citations (which is something ChatGPT can’t do)?\nWe can’t stop new tools from making old methods obsolete. But we can focus on enhancing critical thinking of students in a stepwise manner. When a new tool is created, think about how you can adapt rather than resist it.", ">\n\nWhy not just train an ai to spot ai written papers?", ">\n\nWhat about gradually putting more emphasis on oral assignments?", ">\n\nEverything you said makes perfect sense...IF the goal was to teach children simply how to write the perfect standard essay. But that is a very limited way of viewing education and what its real goal is. The real goal of education is to teach children how to think. To come up with the right questions, not just the right answers. In a world where a \"good enough\" essay on literally anything can be conjured as if by magic by a machine, what's the actual value of that exercise now? For a very long time teachers have used the essay as a way to evaluate how a person thinks. Now that a machine can write it for you, we need new ways to evaluate how students think. That's the real task we are facing. Fuck the essay, just like we ditched the slide rule for calculators and later computers, etc. Tools change but the real game remains the same: Think for yourself!", ">\n\nI'd say the best way would be to accept the reality of changing technology and reevaluating the approach we have towards education as a whole.\nGranted, I'd say that's only one half of the picture: reassessing how we conceive if jobs and labour in the face of increasing automation goes along with that, and I think neither really works without the other.\nBottom line is that human labour is more and more obsolete as time goes on, so human jobs will be less and less in demand (I'd argue moving away from a capitalistic system is the right call, but even if you don't, automation is still an incentive).\nSince a large part of the incentive of our current education system is \"prepare you for a job\" I think the whole thing is going to fall short in light of these kinds of systems developing.\nTheres lots of people now who pursue knowledge as a project of passion, rather than a means to an end, and I think moving to a system that supports and encourages that kind of ambition is the way to go.", ">\n\nI disagree. We should learn to use the tools we have efficiently. Otherwise you are not learning for your career but for some professors ego", ">\n\nThat’s not “education in the era of ChatGPT.” That’s education in the era before ChatGPT while we figure out what the world with ChatGPT will look like so we have some idea of what to do with it.\nThat’s also not “educating,” that’s just “assessment.” Assessment is simply a measuring system for education. As long as you think of the acquisition of knowledge and skill as requiring knowledge regurgitation and skill performance in isolation and divorced from context/individualized, then you’re going to end up at necessitating a kind of geofenced, Luddite assessment model. The training itself predicates the assessment method. How we assess is defined by how we teach, and vice versa.\nThe best assessment method to gauge understanding is, and always has been, conversation.\nAll we need to do is pair assessment with regular conversation between qualified teacher and student to determine if personal comprehension is present. Not an interview, not an interrogation — conversation. Problem solving performance contexts are also great revealer of internalized knowledge and skill.\nChatGPT is a relative nonissue if your approach to assessment is at all human.\nIt’s only a problem when you’re trying to mechanize and dehumanized education. “Rigorous” does not mean “mechanical.” We are going to have to trust the professional, knowledge- and skill-assessing judgements of humans who already know and can do.\nEducation reverts to having more emphasis on apprenticeship and mentorship models, where the relationship itself is part of the learning process. \n(The “accountability!” cranks are gonna love that…)", ">\n\nI have a strong suspicion that discussions like this, while very interesting, will be obsolete long before any changes can actually be implemented in schools. In fact, I'm pretty sure schools will be gone entirely in the near future.\nAs of right now, you can be taught almost any subject by an exceptionally well-spoken, fast and infinitely patient teacher called GPT to a university level, if not higher. Try it right now - go ask GPT to explain the political situation that allowed Alexander the Great to conquer Persia, or ask it to explain the raytracing algorithm. If there's a part you don't understand, ask it to clarify. You'll be amazed how accessible it makes advanced topics.\nNow, how long before we have VR software with a realistic-looking AI teacher, with an AI-generated voice, who can do the same thing, but respond to students' voices and use body language and visual demonstrations? Five years?\nHow long after that before this tech is cheap, and of such high quality that sending your kids to school will be a worse education?\nNow in, say, 20 years, we could have an AI system that takes a DNA sample, analyses a students genotype to understand what subjects they will be naturally good at, what education approaches will be most successful, and continuously improves its model of the student's behavior by observing them. It crafts a decades-long education journey tailored to the individual, and accompanies them the entire way.\nTeachers, as far as they've existed so far, don't have a chance.", ">\n\nAre you trying to test someone or teach them?\nIf the latter, why do you care about cheating? This reminds me of the ol' teachers who used to restrict calculators because \"you won't always have a calculator with you.\"", ">\n\nYou forget that for 99% of homework students could just copy each other's work. Having the answers out in the world accessible is not a new problem. You just make homework a small part of the grades and you make sure students understand it's important to actually do it or they won't do well on the tests.", ">\n\nThere are so many people that can’t do the basic math examples you mentioned somewhere and they went to school at a time when there were no calculators.\nOn the other hand I was allowed to use calculators in school pretty much the moment I left elementary school and I am really quite good at math even without assistance.\nTool usage is one of humanities key features and trying to work against it instead of finding ways to incorporate new technology into school and life seems backwards.", ">\n\nIronically the teacher will have to use an AI to decipher the \"hand written\" assignments.", ">\n\nYou can't force people to learn.", ">\n\nWhat about teaching how to think rather than how to memorize? Just a thought 💭", ">\n\nThey need to get rid of homework, and have students do their work while they're at school. It's awful, they just pile it on, even if a class only has a little homework that day, there's like 6 or 7 classes so it's a nightmare for students. Seems like the only way to prevent cheating is have them do work in class, so I hope for the students sake, they do that.", ">\n\nI’ll throw my idea into the ring, though we’re still a few years off from this technology:\nWe should have students interact with AI tutors that can prompt them questions and point out details. Then they can collaborate on assignments, and the AI tutor can give feedback and suggest snippets. The AI can evaluate their work and their engagement with the material.", ">\n\nOne of Transformers main applications is in search. Ie you get a set of embeddings you can compare the pairwise distances between embedding and get a list of scores that tell you which embeddings are most similar to the input. \nEssentially tools like google are made to reduce the search space for a given query collect likely links and then rerank the most likely results. \nChatgpt basically does this in a more direct way of searching through a space of potential responses. Basically trained on a task to predict next token given the previous tokens or fill in a mask\nTransformers permeate everything students use from the recommendation algorithms on TikTok Facebook, YouTube to search systems in google. \nIn my opinion students should absolutely not be taught to fear these tools tho I do agree they be tested in constrained environments to challenge them. Current systems should not be used to learn unless you have a clear understanding and are willing to check every word and check your reasoning. Future systems will be much better though so this problem isn’t going anywhere. \nIf anything there should be a push to make these ideas more interpretable to a younger audience and give them the tools to navigate an increasingly complex market of ideas. They should be aware of the limitations and how when they use a piece of software their actions and the actions of those around them are influencing what they see next. \nIt should be used and taught with rigor. \nIt’s programming 2.0", ">\n\nDude no; \nChatGPT is the computer. \nDo you want to be the education system that banned the computer and then wondered why all the other education systems output modern tech workers, while your education system kept outputting chimney sweeps and car factory workers?", ">\n\nHW only exists to make students practice, and generally is worth less than 20% of the grade in a class. If a student chooses to use chat GPT to bypass it then that’s the student’s loss.\nUltimately exams are what schools use to evaluate a students knowledge and I don’t think that’s going to change anytime soon", ">\n\nThere are already programs that check if something was written by an AI or not. Also no student I know actually uses chatGPT for major assignments because chatGPT doesn’t know every text to ever be published so it doesn’t understand the context, and most of the time will just bullshit an answer that’s incorrect.\nEveryone I know that uses chatGPT for school do so for either for assignments so small and simple that it doesn’t make sense to quarantine, or they use it as a more advanced google that can answer questions more accurately than a search engine could, essentially just saving time.\n(most) students are using chatGPT largely as a productivity and time management tool rather than to cheat.", ">\n\nThis is like saying “in the age of calculators, the only way to ensure kids learn maths is to ban calculators in school”. If looked at correctly, chatgpt is an effect multiplier, learning just has to be rejigged to have kids learn to do things that they can’t simply ask chatgpt to do for them.", ">\n\nLess course work and more exams is the future in a world with chatGPT.", ">\n\nChatGPT will be a big no issue soon. I work in a research field and this was something we worried about last year. As of now there are multiple tools and even more being developed that catch the use of ChatGPT. There has been research published that list ChatGPT as a co-author, but for most research, and use by students, it will simply be forbidden and will easily be caught as well. The program does well but it has a particular style that can be caught. Again it will be a non-issue soon.", ">\n\nThis is like forbidding people to use a calculator because it can give you the result instant. A better way is to teach them how to use the calculator, because its here now and won't go away. Same with GPT. Children can learn way better/faster with ChatGPD if used correctly. Imaging having a private teacher for free which helps you learning every time of the day.", ">\n\nLet me ask you this. If ChatGPT could complete a students whole assignment, what would that student have learned from doing that assignment on their own that won’t simply be replaced with ChatGPT by a employer in the future?\nEven if ChatGPT doesn’t replace workers for a decade, why teach students skills that will inevitably be replaced and leave said students jobless in a decade?\nChatGPT won’t only be used in the workforce either. Linus Tech Tips has a video showing how ChatGPT can help people learn new skills and do troubleshooting on their own. If I remember correctly, he manages to completely build a pc by only strictly following what ChatGPT tells him to. It even managed to suggest the best parts for that computers specific use case. It was nowhere near perfect, but in the future it will get there.\nSince ChatGPT is such a useful tool in the workforce and at home, I think it’s crucial we teach students how to use it instead of banning them from it. Maybe students should be given a problem and tasked to use ChatGPT to find the solution or have students attempt to learn a new topic with ChatGPT. I’m not a teacher, I just thought of those examples of the top of my head. I’m sure qualified teachers could think of better assignments than me.\nI could see ChatGPT helping a mechanic diagnose an issue so the mechanic could spend more time fixing the problem rather than diagnosing and I can think of a few examples in other jobs as well where ChatGPT will help a worker be more efficient and save more time.\nI think, if anything, we’re setting students up for failure by not teaching them about these tools that will take over the workforce and help in everyday life.", ">\n\nYou’ll still have to pass a test. Relax.", ">\n\nIt “fairs” extremely well? Maybe some additional time spent observing ChatGPT could actually benefit some", ">\n\nThere’s just no way you can use ChatGPT to do all of your work for you and be successful at any moderately high level of academic pursuit. Not without learning the material yourself, and if you’ve done that, I don’t think it matters so much whether you used chatGPT and for what along the way.\nFrankly if you start our using chatGPT early in school, you won’t even be able to ask the right questions in the right way and include the necessary refinements to do more complex and demanding assignments down the road. \nAlso, tests are still a thing aren’t they? ChatGPT doesn’t help you perform in person in a monitored environment - not in a way that would allow you to skip learning the material. I don’t really get this aspect of your cmv. As long as tests don’t allow access to ChatGPT, anyone who didn’t learn the material is going to be exposed..", ">\n\nThere are already programs that detect ChatGPT writing.", ">\n\nThe children who want to cheat will always find a way to do so. It doesn’t matter how much you do to restrict it, it’ll just make them find new means of doing so. \nSource: I did GCSE’s in the UK, AP in the US. Trust, kids will cheat even in sterile environments. Especially if it’s a huge room and there are few moderators. A lot of us are scared of repercussions but those who aren’t won’t let anything stand in there way—region and proctoring be damned.", ">\n\nI require them to complete an outline first. Outline must be submitted to me before I take the essay. Google doc lets you see that they write it and when each sentence was written. It’s helped.", ">\n\nCHATGPT is a tool, and in some applications (not all), it can help students do their homework. Consider the calculator. Do students not need to learn formulas and critical thinking just because they can punch numbers into calculators?\nNo, math is still a skill that is valuable if for no other reason then because it trains your brain to solve problems.\nOne of the things that surprises me is that ChatGPT can use words and explain things to students even when a teacher is not available or when there isn’t one. we should consider this an educational opportunity rather than a disadvantage.\nThere are so many amazing things we humans can do when we simply have tools to help us. ChatGPT is no different.", ">\n\nYou can’t force people to live in the past. Chat GPT is here to stay. Education now needs to focus on teaching people how to use AI, and how to develop a skill that can’t be replaced by AI.", ">\n\nHow about getting students engaged in what they’re learning and excited to learn. Find what they’re good at and double down on it. Don’t make school a fucking quarantine bubble. Socialize, allow them to teach and learn from each other. Replace the potential for cheating with collaboration assignments in person. “Children will cheat if given the opportunity” is such horse shit. If somebody doesn’t know or wasn’t taught something well then yea they’re gonna look to get it right so they can obtain approval. How about teaching them so they won’t cheat??", ">\n\nThats not it. I don’t have an answer for you, but thats not it.", ">\n\nHow about just have the kids do a presentation on \"their\" report with Q&A at the end. They'll have no choice but to know the info.... which is the point.", ">\n\nWell, making an AI that detects if something was made by an AI shouldnt be hard", ">\n\nI wonder if anyone has tried training a machine to look at assignments and give a confidence interval of the assignment being either human or machine in origin.", ">\n\nYeah we call that stuff examns...", ">\n\nThe problem with your suggested approach is that it just reinforces the current failures of the education system. It doesn't actually teach us the skills that you will be able to use in the field. \n\nYou can look up formulas for physics and you can double check online for any coding questions. Chat gpt is a tool and I think forbidding students from using it will just be a disservice to them and everyone in the future. It's not going to go away any time soon so how about instead of teaching children to cheat more effectively, we teach them how to use chat gpt to its full potential? It can speed up so many tasks to such a degree that students will be able to recieve more advanced education in the time that was saved by using chat gpt", ">\n\nI mean, there are plenty of good reasons already said, but wouldn't it just be easy to cheat. You get home, ask Chat.gpt for a result, print it out. Bring it with you to the school quarantine, copy it into the computer. (Unless you would like a full strip search of the students upon entering, which is wrong in so many ways)", ">\n\nI could use this in my program all I wanted and pass courses with perfect scores, and at the end of my degree I’d have a licensure exam that I’d fail cause I didn’t learn anything.", ">\n\nGreat idea! While let's just ignore the real world and keep our heads in the sand. Let's also get rid of computers and ink pens and go back to stone and chisel!", ">\n\nInstead of asking students to write ...ask them to spot the mistakes and correct the essays.\nThat requires way more knowledge and mastership.", ">\n\nI feel like this is a modern day equivalent to saying that now that the internet is available at the family computer, students must complete their work entirely under supervision.\nAI is here and more that is better is coming and people need to learn how to integrate with it rather than fight it. It's going to take some jobs. Just like the cotton gin and steam drill took work from people who then immediately transitioned to other work that the machine couldn't do and to running to machine itself. People will need to run ChatGPT. Feed it, verify its output, clean it up and submit the report based on CGPT4.0's write up. Individuals need to know the material, sure, but we can't really keep students off the internet and trying to do so just wastes resources and makes teachers pull their hair out.", ">\n\nI think the problem lies deeper. Humans and especially children want to learn and understand. One of the most common words a 5 y/o uses is \"why\". \"Why do airplanes fly? Why is the sun bright? Why can't I have candy? Why isn't the house collapsing? It is bigger than my sandcastle that fell over.\" And the education system should be ashamed of itself that it kills this curiosity and motivation of the children. I don't want to go too deep into possible solutions. Just one anecdote from myself:\nWe had to produce an educational video. For that we got 20 hours time. We worked around 30, met at my apartment and filmed after a day off homeschooling. Nobody thought of cheating with chatgpt because we have the script our character. On the other hand: I should colour a heart now and I don't want to, so I don't do it.\nEveryone has their video and colouring schematics and we should encourage the prior to the latter, making the demand for cheating less important \nAlso we sent around our homeworks all the time. The concept of homework isn't great at all" ]
> Sorry, u/Own-Listen1552 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.	[ "/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^\| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.", ">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?", ">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.", ">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?", ">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.", ">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?", ">\n\nYou mean a grade?", ">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication", ">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.", ">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)", ">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.", ">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.", ">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.", ">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.", ">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?", ">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.", ">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.", ">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.", ">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.", ">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.", ">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.", ">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.", ">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.", ">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.", ">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.", ">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.", ">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.", ">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.", ">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use", ">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.", ">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.", ">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.", ">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.", ">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.", ">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.", ">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.", ">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).", ">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.", ">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.", ">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.", ">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.", ">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.", ">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.", ">\n\n\nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \n\nWhy? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it. \n\nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \n\nWhy? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? \nLet's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project. \n\nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.\n\nTotally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator.", ">\n\nFor the most part, knowledge workers perform a given amount of work in a given amount of hours, and the number of them hired by a company is TotalHoursNeeded/NumHoursPerEmployee. E.g. if you have 100 manyears of work to get done in a typical year, you employ 100 people.\nChat GPT isn't going to \"replace\" people wholesale, because as you say someone still needs to supervise it. But it looks to be on track to increase the productivity of programmers (can write a first draft of code and finds many of the bugs instantly). \nSame for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones. \nSo now the TotalNeeded is decreased by some percentage, let's say 10% to start. Now you only need 90 human programmers to do that same work. With 25% efficiency gain, you need 75. With 50%, 50. Etc. \nOr take translation jobs. Today, an editor spends roughly 3 minutes per word editing machine translated text, and 1 minute per word editing human-translated text. As long as editors are more expensive per hour than first translation people, it still makes sense much of the time to hire translators, because the software isn't free. \nBut the graph of machine translation \"efficiency\" is trending towards taking the same amount of time to edit as a human translator. As soon as that's hit, there's literally no reason to hire human translators, only editors. \nAnd if the editing time goes down to 30 seconds/word because of further AI assistance to the editor, you only need half as many of those.", ">\n\nThere is currently two better solutions being worked on - one of which is already being used to some degree. \nThe first is ChatGPT developers themselves making moves to make AI written works to be identified by \"watermark\" or similar. I don't thi k this one has taken effect at all yet. \nAnother is by a separate dev team that allows teachers to use software to determine the amount of an essay, for example, that is written by AI what the likelihood of any one sentence or paragraph to have been written by AI. This allows the teachers to use discretion when determining if the student used the AI in a way that they find acceptable or not. This way instead kf running from the scary AI educators can actually utilize tyhe AI with students to help them develop their writing and other communications.", ">\n\nWhat about kids with transportation issues? When I was in school I knew kids that drove almost an hour each way to get there. I certainly couldn’t have asked my parents to drop everything to take me all the way to school so I could do my homework if I forgot. Bus schedules? Do you think schools want to waste more money by burning more gas for extra routes? I understand where you’re coming from, but for a fair amount of children—especially in poorer, more rural areas—that getting to school and back is such a delicate balancing act that such a thing would just punish them.", ">\n\nI've seen a few key things from academics testing out ChatGPT (I have not signed up myself):\n\nIt tends to produce confident, convincing nonsense. It doesn't actually understand what it's writing about, and I hear it shows.\nIt makes up citations. Real authors in the field, real journals... but made-up titles. Things like that, since, again, it doesn't actually understand citations.\n\nThis suggests that, for assignments requiring the demonstration of genuine, in-depth understanding, and not merely the ability to summarize facts, ChatGPT will fail.\nA similar example that you bring up in the comments is programming cheat sheets into calculators - but for well-designed engineering exams (including the licensure exams, at least in the US), cheat sheets are fine and often either allowed or provided. A well-designed exam tests the ability to apply principles, not knowledge of equations, so a cheat sheet is harmless, or even allows the exam to work better (since people aren't distracted with memorizing equations).", ">\n\nThere are three criticisms that I have of this approach. \n\n\nShould we not teach to the environment that we live in? Yes, education often imposes arbitrary constraints like time tests but for research and reports why not let people use and work around all resources? If you can work around chat gpt to work efficiently, then do it. You learn what it can and can’t do and how to use it effectively as a tool. \n\n\nCan chatGPT on it’s own actually write a good essay? From what I have seen it can pull together a few sources. It can generally write fluff based on other things that it has seen. But it struggles to write analysis. It can’t interrogate a source or make value judgements. It could be useful for doing some filler or providing ideas but if to do an actual report, I think it would be insufficient. \n\n\nAn assignment that can be done using chatgpt is probably boring. Here I am writing an essay for no reason other than I find it interesting to discuss this topic. Perhaps, we arent giving students interesting enough assignments or we are overloading them to the point that they don’t have the time to engage? If chatGPT turns out to be an issue maybe it’s more of an indictment of the structures and norms of education.", ">\n\n\n\nhomework in the form of essays, take home tests, coding assignments, would be completed on school grounds. \n\n\nCongratulations, you've invented the \"cram school\".\nI'd recommend reading through your post again and actually thinking about the things you've said. Because essentially, you're merely advocating for the wholesale elimination of homework and for education outside of that to remain totally unchanged. It's almost literally, \"Make the school day 30% longer\".\nMy solution to the \"problem\" of students potentially using ChatGPT to cheat on homework: I don't think you need a hilariously convoluted system of homework \"boiler rooms\" redolent of national security apparatus, that requires schools to adopt ruinously expensive and disruptive technological and administrative changes.\nIt would be sufficient if we institute a system whereby teachers are encouraged to, let's say... \"test\" their students, whether by regular written exams or by talking to them in what I'll call \"classes\", to ensure they understand the material they've been assigned to learn.\nThis method ensures that students cannot use AI homework bots to coast through classes (since they'll literally be found out the very next class), and has the added benefit of not adding three hours to every teacher's day.", ">\n\nWhat about pen and ink?", ">\n\narguably I can just copy a ChatGPT output by hand. So I think that is a first level measure, but not a complete solution.", ">\n\nIt's a better solution than prison just because the curriculum can't keep up with technology.\nWhen calculators arrived on everyone's phone and everyone's pocket did you advocate for the same solution? Unlikely, so why only now with this system?", ">\n\nWell I did and I was. When I was studying engineering in the 80s we routinely could not arrive at exams with a calculator. Even then calculators were programmable enough to allow students to write cheat sheets in calculator memory.\nIt forced us to memorize equations, principals of engineering, and independent thinking. I’m a better engineer because I did.", ">\n\nSo you're what, almost 60? And you think what's best for children is to be like you? Don't you think you may be a bit out of touch?\nAlso, your view was about K12 students, not engineering students.", ">\n\nNo. As I replied, leaning on tools as a crutch all your life will limit your ability and function as a human. For example, you could argue that basic math isn’t necessary. As matter of fact that was an argument years ago with the advent of calculators.\nHowever, humans should be able to exist and functions without a digital crutch. You should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator. You should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google. There are basic elements of duration necessary since we are all still wet grey matter.", ">\n\n\nYou should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator\n\nBut why?\n\nYou should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google\n\nAgain, why?\nWhere do you get your \"should\" from?\nI have basically all human knowledge in my hand, every equation or conversion I'll ever need day to day, even every language I'll likely ever encounter. Why shouldn't I leave my brain free to think about what it wants and to use my incredible resource as and when it's needed?\nDo you envision some Saw-like situation where you're locked to a wall and need to solve maths equations at pain of death?", ">\n\nThe less you use your brain the less likely your body is to maintain it. Our body functions through a use or lose it principle. Just look people who lose movement function/muscle just by being bedridden for a long time. Our brain is not different.\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.", ">\n\nIs wasting resources on process you can deletage outside not using your brain? You free up that space to put to what you decide is important.\n\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.\n\nThe weakest man with a gun can take out the strongest bodybuilder.", ">\n\nAnd if you decide Tik tok and Netflix are important? How do you think that will affect the cognitive ability of kids?\nI didn't mention strength nor physical strength. And even then the strongest man with a gun will probably take out the weakest man with a gun.(An actual fair comparison)", ">\n\nCouldn't chatgpt (or somesuch AI) be asked \"Hey - did you write this?\" and nip this sort of thing in the bud?", ">\n\nNo, Chat GPT doesn't remember everything it's said, the potential things it could say are huge and even if someone wrote something that Chat GPT might say, it could be a coincidence.", ">\n\nWell, strike that idea then.\nStill though - there must be some way to use AI to deal with this. \"set a thief to catch a thief\" and all that.", ">\n\nChat GPT (and most generative AIs) use GANs to generate content. \nIn laymen's terms (and extremely simplified as it's above my level of understanding) a GAN is 2 AI systems competing against each other, a creator AI that creates content and a checker AI that decides if the content was genuine or made by the other AI. \nSo any automated way to tell if it's AI generated can be built into the checker AI in future versions and the creator AI will learn to avoid whichever features the checker AI is spotting.", ">\n\nChatGPT is just another mechanism for reducing the need for labor, and it's not going away. \nChildren will need to be educated in both how to make effective use of it (for as long as it's not sufficient to completely eliminate mental labor), and also in the ethics of not using it. Always forcing them to write in airgapped places isn't going to do that, it just makes them resent it. \nAlso: essay writing on a scale needed to really learn long-form writing is not very amenable to doing in an airgapped classroom, because honestly we're not using dead-tree sources of information anymore already, so doing their research pretty much has to include doing it on line. \nBut really: laborious manual long-form essay writing is going to go the way of penmanship and looking things up in a library as an unneeded skill very quickly. We need children to adjust to that reality of the modern world rather than pretending it will go away. \nPeople are still needed (for now) to do the important part of writing essays without doing the laborious bit that ChatGPT automates anyway: deciding what to write, and editing it into a convincing and well-written form. \nForcing kids to spend a lot of time learning how to write the basic bulk part of essays is a lot like teaching them how to make buggy-whips in shop class: a pointless exercise. \nIt would be better to give them all prewritten ChatGPT essays and have them learn the limitations and capabilities.", ">\n\nIs ChatGPT really that much more effective than just grabbing things off Wikipedia? I was asking it things about elections and it was just Wikipedia from two years ago", ">\n\nThe answer is NEVER to limit technology. It’s to teach the new generation how to use that technology to achieve the same goal.\nIt’s pointless to ban computers and teach the memorization of dates in history class. It’s much more productive to teach online research skills so that if an individual needs to know the date of a particular moment in history, they can reliably Google it.\nChatGPT is the same. It renders writing essays as pointless, and it necessitates the teachers to adapt to new teaching styles, such as teaching the skills on how best to manipulate ChatGPT to return the information you need.", ">\n\nI was banned from using programming calculators when I studied engineering in the 80s during exams. It forced the students to all be on the same level playing field and forced us to actually know the equations, their applications, and the processes of whatever engineering course I was taking.\nIt made us better engineers.", ">\n\nHow does handicapping you make you a better engineer? If I put you and an engineer trained with technology in the same room together, who do you think would accomplish the task faster?", ">\n\nThe handicapped engineer, easily. The point of forcing students to actually learn the material is so that they understand how to reason about the underlying processes when they need to troubleshoot something going wrong, and understand the tradeoffs between approaches and how to select the best one for the task. \nOnce you understand things deeply you don't actually need training in doing things quickly because it's immediately intuitive how to apply a technological process to save time. The guy that leaned heavily on technology is basically fucked if he has to use a technique or software that he didn't specifically train on since he doesn't have a good foundation to abstract from. It would be more appropriate to call this person a technician.", ">\n\nThe purpose of calculators is to do the menial part of the work, not to solve whole processes. The engineer that learned with calculators likely knows how to select the right process to solve a problem, but uses the calculator to do the math faster and with fewer errors.", ">\n\nAt the college level, we’re not talking about tools to add and multiply. We’re talking about tools like Wolfram Alpha that do entire symbolic manipulations for you. If I took a calculus class and on all the assignments used Wolfram Alpha to find derivatives, do you think I would have learned anything?\nThat is what ChatGPT is doing for essays", ">\n\nThere are things called pencil and paper.", ">\n\nAs I said, this is the first line defense. However as I already commented to another user. I can simply hand copy ChatGPT output. Essentially not doing my own independent research, writing, coding, and studying.", ">\n\nWhy don't you consider that research? \nThe first source was the best. It's incredibly efficient research IMO.", ">\n\nThe idea of tool removal has always been flawed. From calculators to chat GPT and beyond. If your test is so flimsy that a simple tool invalidates it then the test is poorly built. Test shouldn't be simple busywork tasks, they should require thinking, problem solving, complex thought. If it's just a game of memorization that can be cheated by answers on a paper, you've built a bad test.\nover memorization (which is what our current school systems teach) is not only unhelpful, but also harmful. We live in an era of wikipedia being a reliable source, of vast access to tools both online and phsycial. We should be teaching kids they should do the work but with the help of those tools, not despite them.\nThe main issue with your argument is that based on what you've said, i can assume you think the current school system is a good one but so many studies have shown that at least here in the US, the school systems are some of the worst in the world. It's this memorize, ignore tools, singular focus mentality that plays such a big role.\nIf we were more creative with education, incorporating tool utilization into the learning process, we'd likely have a major improvement to our educational successes. I could go on about how the education system prefers certain kinds of students over others, and how many students are left behind simply because they don't learn like other kids and are therefore punished, but I won't. All I'll say is that more restrictions on how and what kids learn isn't going to help them learn more or better.\nand in 15 years when chat GPT is a part of daily life in every single company on the planet in some way or another (which I'm beyond certain it will be), kids who were taught how to properly utilize it will have just such a huge advantage in the workforce over those who weren't", ">\n\nRather than attempt to find ways to prevent new technology from interfering with existing pedagogy, shouldn't we review and revise pedagogy as new technology develops? \nIf a chat AI program can write these things, what is the point of having humans repeatedly do the same work? We don't expect people to use an abacus when doing math, or limit their research to what's in the library card catalogue, or require printed paper publications as essay resources; we adapted to the calculator, and to the internet and search engines. So too should we adapt to things like ChatGPT, not by trying to pretend it doesn't exist, but by finding ways to incorporate it into a more holistic approach to learning.\nRather than chain kids to an airgapped room on school grounds outside of school hours to do homework that's of dubious educational value in the first place, we should take this as an opportunity to refocus schooling on in-class engagement and direct instruction. ChatGPT and programs like it are showing us yet another thing we as humans can outsource to our technology, so why struggle to do things in a more difficult and inefficient way?", ">\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\nIn addition, AI is only as good as the data it is fed. You must still be able to do the work on your own to analyze when the AI is giving valid outputs (garbage in, garbage out). This is especially true, when AI runs the risks of being owned or operated by those with a specific agenda. Can you imagine the trouble that would result if people relied on AI to determine who to vote for, but someone was able to pay the operators to have the AI promote them?\nRelying on AI to do our work for us is a distillation of an appeal to authority fallacy on a large scale (if the AI says it, it must be true).", ">\n\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\n\nThis is something I worry about A LOT when it comes to AI. Our collective understanding of the subjects that we usually classify as \"the humanities\" is constantly evolving as we learn more, and especially as a more diverse set of people are allowed to study, research and put forth opinions and arguments.\nImagine if students were outsourcing all their history, psychology, sociology and philosophy homework to a chatbot with a 1950s understanding of those subjects.\nImagine doctors outsourcing psych patient diagnoses to a chatbot with the same understanding.\nOn an arguably less \"serious\" but still critically important moral and political topic, imagine if all/most videogame art was outsourced to an AI engine with a 1990s sensibility for female characters. Same for all kinds of representation and diversity.\nHow about politics and political science in general... ha!\nEtc, etc etc.\nIt is NOT the case that we already have discovered all the true answers to the big questions, and we can merely turn to a \"knowledge calculator\" like ChatGPT to spit out the truth.\nEven if AI can pretty accurately reflect the discourse of the day, as it is currently understood and accepted, our collective knowledge and culture will stagnate if we do not actively participate in developing it, and we will all pay the price for that.", ">\n\nThese are all moralistic arguments that ultimately don’t mean anything.", ">\n\nI would say they are more epistemic arguments, which do matter greatly in the context of education (which is what the op was referring to).", ">\n\nAre any of these things mentioned actually realistic concerns? Someone is going to train an AI bot to generate 90s female art characters with big tits?\nNo. Lol and even if someone did, who cares?", ">\n\nConsidering how many people believe obviously fake stories that have no supporting evidence (and in spite of contrary evidence), yes, I believe they are very real concerns.\nIf an AI says we should use Brawndo in farming because its got what plants crave (electrolytes), we should probably be able to justify it with reasoning beyond \"the AI says so.\"", ">\n\nWho is suggesting we do anything “just because an AI said so”? \nDo you read books and think everything in it is true “because the book says so”?", ">\n\nHow do you determine if what the book/ai said is false?\nYou would typically do it through a process of research and discovery.\nPeoples' ability to do research and discovery will be greatly diminished if we rely on AI to do those things for us (which is what the previous posters were suggesting).\nTherefore, reliance on AI will lead to us losing the ability to discern if the results of what the AI is saying is correct.", ">\n\nWhat? Lol that doesn’t make any sense at all. \nIt is not like if we use AI then all previous knowledge is simply forgotten or lost. It’s all still there.", ">\n\nForcing homework at school makes that \"not homework\", and this approach has never worked. You cant reject change, it never works. Every time there has been a game changing event, people adapted. Those who tried to reject change disappeared. Horse carriages disappeared from roads because something else replaced it. Some people supposedly rejected progress, but they are lying to themselves, they still use modern tech or services at some point.\nAnyway, the change is here, and it made essays irrelevant. Time to find another way to test people skills. \nGive it a little time though. ChatGPT costs a ginormous amount of money to run and will not stay free for long either.", ">\n\nIt's not just ChatGPT, the actual innovation is not the interface but lies in algorithms that can recreate natural language of similar quality with smaller data samples. There are also OpenSource datasets like ThePile, etc. so even if OpenAI moves to a paid model (and they will, quickly. You can already sign up to be first in line for the API), there will be other free providers.", ">\n\nHaving coded AIs, I disagree. ChatGPT is a regular trained AI. The novelty is the scale of the operation, and the fact there is a public API.\nNo one ever spent that much money on resources to run and train an AI publicly. I am pretty sure google has done something similar with user data sets to make their search engine and general ecosystem.\nI wish there was a way to have algorithms working with smaller data sets and produce similar results, but it kind of does not work that way.", ">\n\nThere are already tools to identify ChatGPT generated texts. Such tools will improve as another use of literally the same technology.\nJust as teachers submit essays for identifying plagiarism, teachers will submit essays for identifying AI-generated text. \nFurther, a focus could change from grading students on what they know to grading students' ability to ask meaningful, content-based questions about the subject. After all, knowing facts isn't particularly valuable as a skill. Integrating facts and discovering valuable questions is still something that remains a uniquely human skill. And is where people will continue to add value as AI becomes more advanced.", ">\n\nStudents have always been able to 'cheat' on work done outside the classroom, by copying or somehow getting others to do their work for them, even before the internet. Yes with more advanced modern technology it is easier but this has always been a concern. \nAs regular learning environments like supervised classrooms are already 'quarantined' in the way you descibe you are fundementally just suggesting an increase in learning hours as a supplement to homework. This has been suggested by many for various reasons but it would overall cuase more issues than it fixes. It increases work load on teachers and administrators, stretching already thin educational budgets, and forces increased mental strain on children. It would limit their ability to do other recreational and out of ciriculum activities. This would be disruptive and controlling when the quantity of teaching and learning time that children recive is already considered sufficiant for a good education.", ">\n\nHell the only thing stopping me from using ChatGPT regularly for my work now is that it's always at capacity.", ">\n\nApply tests that are hand written, doesnt matter how a person obtains the knowledge, actually learning the subject is most important thing.", ">\n\nThere is no amount of ChatGPT that could influence a good old oral exam where the teacher evaluates the understanding via a little chat.", ">\n\nSo tired of this view. We shouldn’t be fighting technology. Teach kids to use the resources they have to find answers. It’s such a waste of 12 years of school, teaching kids to memorize facts and follow rules. \nInstead, every test should be open book and reward the best answers. Ask the kids to show their work or explain their thought process so we reward understanding of a topic rather than memorization of steps or text.", ">\n\n20 years ago, there were already homework communities and learn groups. Even from the publishers of school books and with free access to tutors. Ok, they didnt do the final homework for me, but gave me a great starting point.\nBeing the kid who transcribes a wiki page was already stupid back then when others could call you out:\nBut I guess the actual problem is lack of digital literacy with teachers, they're always 5-10 years behind.", ">\n\nIf you are testing skills that can be done by free tools on the internet, then you are testing irrelevant skills.\nThe best way to educate kids is to test for skills they need, not skills they objectively don't.\nI was able to witness a couple of universities adapt to tests during quarantine, and follow reports on how the new methods would be used going forward.\nThe results where thus:\nMass offline testing is incredibly cost efficient (one examiner per ~300 students), but the tests results are a poor indicator of real world performance.\nOne to One testing is incredibly expensive, but can, when done right, test actual understanding and performance.\nBoth will be useful, of course. Mass testing is most useful when used in a way that students aren't incentivized to cheat, such as when framed as practice.", ">\n\nOne of the upsides of needing to prevent this kind of tech from cheating assignments is that teachers should focus on having students be able to do their homework at school. (As a former teacher, we were trying to do this already- no more than 15 min of homework per class). \nI dont think we need to do quite what you say. We just need to limit outside electronics and have in-person classrooms or computer labs with programs designed to be AI-proof. \nI have ALWAYS believed that cell phones/internet watches should be stored in school lockers (at most) and never allowed anywhere else on campus during the school day. If anyone needs to contact the students they contact the desk who relays their message/other need. Many schools already do this.", ">\n\n∆\nI agree with this. It would help.", ">\n\nThank you!", ">\n\nThat is utterly pointless.\nThere is no reason to limit the available tools.\nThis just reminds me of the entire \"you won't have a calculator wherever you go\" argument.\nSchool should instead put a focus on responsibly using available tools.", ">\n\nAnd if students choose to use them irresponsibly, what should schools do?\nAnd can you please define what constitutes responsible use? Because despite knowing about plagiarism, people still copy and paste from the internet. Perfect abstinence is easier than perfect moderation after all.", ">\n\nJust return to hand written essays and have more oral exams.", ">\n\n∆l\nActually of all comments having oral exams compliments my post and I agree with you. Enjoy the delta.", ">\n\nIn a Faraday cage.", ">\n\nIf children can just generate work with ChatGPT, it simply shows that children are not being taught anything valuable. (Once ChatGPT responses can be generated in almost unlimited amounts at very low cost, it necessarily means those responses are of low value)\nInstead shouldn't we be teaching children to provide more valuable outcomes that ChatGPT can't replicate?", ">\n\nBeing able to do on your own what ChatGPT does with access to an immense amount of data and processing power is valuable. The actual writing isn't valuable, obviously, but it would be silly to expect it to be. It's just a side effect of practice, you spend time making things of little or no value to build up the skills you'll need to make something that actually matters. That's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\nI think you'd be hard pressed to teach a class of children to outperform ChatGPT in writing without ever asking them to write something that could also be done via AI. What would that even look like?", ">\n\n\nThat's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\n\nIt is a problem. That is why I hated math class until 2nd year of university.", ">\n\nDid you start discovering novel math results in your second year of university, or was that just the point at which you first encountered problems you found interesting, despite the fact that someone else had already solved them before? Thinking back the class you didn't hate, do you think it should be removed if someone can construct an AI to give all the answers you gave?", ">\n\nThis is only a method for evaluating students, it doesn't do anything to educate them.\nChatgpt is potentially a great tool for education but trying to find complex ways around it for homework is pointless. When testing fact retention is required using school/university computers with no web browsing makes sense. For any other test or situation it's a tool that might be used.", ">\n\nI understand OPs concern. That said, I do not think you can create true quarantine for a multitude of reasons. \nThe biggest one is probably time. I worked through high school and university. Because I lived in the middle of nowhere it was about a 30 min drive to high school and then an hour to uni. Having to stay at these quarantine zones to complete assignments would have been hell on my schedule, car, and wallet. \nYou said it yourself, if someone is going to cheat, they will cheat. If I had to do the work in a quarantine zone, what exactly stops me from doing the actual work on my computer at home, printing it all out, and then just writing that into the computer at the quarantine zone? Unless you want to try having students write an entire essay in their hour long class? There has to be a point where they go home and then this falls apart.", ">\n\nThere are already lots of ways to cheat in homework and mostly our steps to deal with that amount to the honour system, and by university level, automated plagiarism detection (which can be quite easily avoided). The point you \"won't argue\" that people will cheat if given the opportunity is probably the actual crux of what's wrong with your suggestion and the part that needs a big [citation needed]. Concluding that the majority of people are fundamentally dishonest is a big assumption to handwave away. \nIf you want an education, cheating is stupid. Ultimately you might get a paper qualification out of it but you'll have actually learned nothing - you won't hold up long against someone who has done it properly when you actually have to apply the skills. Or if you do, then the assignments weren't that crucial to the learning in the first place.", ">\n\nMany of the things I learned in school were largely irrelevant. I couldn't use a calculator to do long division. After I passed those early elementary school years I never did long division again. I wouldn't even argue learning the long division algo is mandatory. It's nice to have learnt it I guess, but I spent way too many hours on it. I can see learning fundamentals of essay writing, etc, are great, but why can't we just evolve to learn more effective things in life? ChatGPT should be used as a tool, not viewed as a detriment.", ">\n\nIt'd suggest that the best way to educate them is to embrace ChatGBT and teach them to use it well. Your method is a bit like teaching kids to do math without calculators or accounting without excel or financial software. There is some value, but it runs out very quickly and you're at a social and competetive disadvantage for taking some archane principled approach to education that is more of a defense of \"how we used to do it\".\nI'm old enough to remember when using a word processor was sometime forbidden for reasons of fairness - that seems entirely disconnected now from doing good work and it's almost hard to envision the thought process of those who thought everything should be hand written for students. \nIsn't the kid who is amazing at utilizing tools like ChatGBT going to do much better in the world than the one who does not? Your idea of \"proper education\" would easily regress back to needing to do all subjects scrawled in dirt with sticks and grunted in non-standardized language.", ">\n\nOR, chatgpt will be a great boon to the entire education system:\nIncreased accessibility: ChatGPT and other AI-powered systems can provide education to individuals who otherwise would not have access to it, due to geographical, financial, or other barriers.\n\nPersonalized learning: ChatGPT can provide personalized education experiences based on each student's strengths, weaknesses, and learning style.\n\n24/7 availability: ChatGPT can operate 24/7, providing students with access to education at any time, anywhere, which can be especially beneficial for those with demanding schedules or for individuals in remote areas.\n\nScalability: ChatGPT can provide education to a large number of students simultaneously, which could help to address the shortage of teachers and resources in some areas.\n\nCost-effectiveness: ChatGPT can be a more cost-effective option for providing education compared to traditional methods, as it does not require physical classrooms or teachers.\n\nImproved student engagement: ChatGPT can provide interactive, engaging learning experiences that can hold students' attention and foster deeper learning.\n\n--Source: ChatGPT", ">\n\nThere a lots of places where texts and exams are “open book”. The questions have to be written differently, and the point is that you’re not testing someone’s ability to memorize, but rather their ability to understand. This is a more difficult test to write, so in theory AI could force education to improve since everyone would a virtual tutor with them at all times.", ">\n\nI'm a teacher and I've been thinking a lot about this the last couple months. Changes within the education system/curriculum/syllabus/retraining of teachers will take far too long to keep up with the ease of access to, and success of, chatgpt and AI in general. \nThe only solution moving forward both short and long term is to embrace it, there is no stopping it now anyway and if we don't all want to be out of a job in 5 years we need to - \n- demonstrate feasible/moral/ethical use of such tools\n- create more opportunities for collaborative learning/hands-on/problem solving tasks and ones that increase communication skills between peers. \nHow this applies to each individual, specific task will vary and must require a lot of creativity and trial and error, but I think relying too heavily on your department of education to handle this (or most 'boots on the ground' problems) will ultimately only degrade a students experience and ability for learning.", ">\n\nI'm with you on what you're trying to accomplish. I just don't know that it's the \"best\" way. \nFor instance, how is homework performed in school superior to trusting the kids to learn the material, which would then be tested by oral exam? And yes, I do believe that asking a student to verbally explain a topic is a really good way to gauge mastery.", ">\n\nThere is not a hope in hell that we'll go back to hand written stuff. That's not how technology works. As the music companies. There are better ways to show you know a subject, for sure, than the current out of-date ones. That's for sure. Have you ever taken an on-line exam?", ">\n\nI argue to let them use chatGPT as it will be their future. This is similar to my generations \"you'll never walk around with a calculator so learn math.\" The future children will grow into a society where work means utilizing AI tech to help them thrive. If chatGPT helps them write an essay, and it's good, it means they're using resources. I agree, however, that we should supplement this with actual reading and writing.", ">\n\nI would argue that most of time that ChatGPT and similar technologies is going to be an issue is in 8-12 grade and college.\nThis technology is not going away, and it's only going to improve. Personally I would treat it like calculators, audio books and spell check.\nTech kids how to use the technology properly. Sure it's somewhat handy to calculate numbers in your head, but having the ability to do math in your head does not give you much of an advantage in today's world and not being able to doesn't hurt you much. But it's still critical to know formulas and how to peace together algebraic statements and word problems. \nKnowing how to spell properly is less important than knowing proper word usage - most times you're writing something it can be spell-checked in real time. Sure it's \"terrible that today's kids...\" don't know how to spell... but it's not going to affect their career. \nEnter ChatGPT - same thing. Should I spend the time to write a white paper on the changing advertising landscape to alert my boss about the a potential seismic shift in advertising revenue, or should I ask ChatGPT to write it? As a user I have to understand its limits and potential copywrite issues, but even more importantly how to verify that what it writes is correct and targeting the right audience. Is data from before 2020 going to be recent and accurate enough for my thesis? How do I supplement the discussion with real-world data? \nThis is our new reality. We should be learning how to use the tools properly, not trying to figure out to lock it down (which frankly makes as much sense as locking down the use of calculators or spell check).", ">\n\nI think there are already apps in place that are able to detect AI generated text (Read this article).\nAlso, I think a better method would be to simply have a database of ChatGPT (could be encrypted) generated text and make it available to already existing software that is use to detect plagiarism (this is just an exemple amongst many)", ">\n\nFrankly I don’t think high schoolers and below should be given homework or tests at all. One learns magnitudes better through exploration as opposed to mindless repetition. Engage with these kids intellectually, make them free thinking Athenians, not bags of knowledge of which they have no idea how to use.\nDoes it not surprise anyone that we train people for over a decade in intellect yet hardly have any intellectuals?", ">\n\nI would argue that society would be better off spending resources on teaching children how to use this tool effectively. Knowing how to get the right answer is what matters in this world.", ">\n\nThen answer this: Well why learn math at all? Seriously.\nWhy learn he concept of subtraction let alone division? I could and society has argued that with the advent of digital calculators. \nYet we learn it. \nLater we use calculators to take the mundane and already known processes to the next level. We abstract away the mundane. \nAs a EE having worked and am working on products you may be using right now to read this, when I develop new silicon and chips I don’t break out Karnaugh maps and lay down circuit using a T square and stencils of gates. But I sure the hell know what I’m doing and expect the tools to do for me. \nTeaching fundamentals of reading, writing, arithmetic, essays, research are just that fundamental.", ">\n\nI’d argue that the vast majority don’t need anything beyond basic math anyways. \nGo ask the average adult if they know the quadratic equation and what it means and you’d probably be disappointed.", ">\n\nChatGPT is here to stay, you'd better advocate for teaching people how to make the most of it and use it wisely instead of pretending it doesn't exist.\nOne of my favourite teachers always told students to use the best tools there are.", ">\n\nI think it depends completely on the topic. In my field of study, it’s fairly easy to come up with term paper assignments that the bot would be useless for. \nLooking back at the paper I wrote last year, I don’t see how any current bot could have helped, as it isn’t able to read or summarize specific sources (yet?).\nAn example of the type of assignments we get is “Discuss the role of state capacity in x and x conflict in light of (specific research paper)‘s dimensions of state capacity - do your findings confirm the findings of (authors), why or why not?\nThis way of combining literature made it difficult even for me to be on top of it, as there were no sources that had attempted this exact combination - it has to be original. \nAlso, I find it’s the best way to learn, because you have to rely on your own judgement and there are no shortcuts, even asking the professor was unhelpful as he wasn’t too familiar with the details.", ">\n\nThis is not the best way.", ">\n\n\nThese homework rooms would have Internet connected computers for use but access to ChatGPT would be filtered and blocked.\n\nThis wouldn't be feasible, there's far too many roundabout ways to still access ChatGPT. Security measures like domain filtering are just unproductive games of whack-a-mole. \nEdit: removed all the other stuff I wrote, as those points have already been mentioned in previous top-level comments.", ">\n\nHomework shouldn’t be the go-to method of “education” to begin with. Imo Universities should focus on the integral part of education: the lectures. Tools like chatgpt can help student who are actually interested in a subject to learn more easily about it, but whether students actually learn anything or not from a class won’t change regardless of if work is authentic or copied from an AI\nSource: I’m a college student and have had experience in both supervised environments where we had to do work without the use of computers/phones and solely-online environments where many students cheated", ">\n\nWhile this could work, it is not necessarily the best way in terms of accessibility and of learning in general. \nFirst, students with ADHD and certain other conditions may not necessarily be the able to be productive at all times, or at the specific time they have to work on those computers, especially if those computers are not in an environment ideal to that specific person. It would also not be very feasible to give students enough time on these computers to complete the bigger assignments and essays. \nSecond, while ChatGPT is quite advanced, it simply works by looking at language patterns and often gets factual details incorrect. For example, with bigger coding problems, it tries to import modules that do not exist or call on functions that it has not defined. In literature, it cannot analyze texts on much more than a surface level. I will admit it can use secondary sources for textual analysis, however, it is unable to come up with a clear thesis on its own. \nAdditionally, take-home tests can be just as easily cheated on using a normal Google search, and usually test thinking skills rather than understanding and knowledge. \nFinally, essay-writing and other types of assignments are generally not ideal for learning as they are only one type of skill, and university professors are recognizing this. Not only do they not work for all learning styles, but they are only used so commonly because of tradition. University professors are structuring assignments around ways that are innovative enough that ChatGPT is unable to work on them. Along with requiring specific readings which the AI might not have access to, and citing of all sources (which has always been a requirement that the AI might trip up on), they are also going away from the traditional essay format into others. For example, I am studying literature, a relatively essay-heavy field, and in my past few courses I have been asked to analyze comics (which the AI cannot read), edit other people’s essays and articles (from past courses), create a mock syllabus or lesson plan with justifications for each reading, and create annotated bibliographies as a stepping stone to an essay. All of these not only require different skills and encourage different types of learning and research but are quite difficult for an AI to do. \nAll in all, while your suggestion is great, the very nature of the AI and the fact that it exists at all is perhaps a sign that the best course of action is to rework the way we think about evaluation. After all, if an evaluation is such that an AI can complete it without the ability to actually think (it works by using observed language patterns), then perhaps the evaluation is not ideal.", ">\n\nI bet teachers and people thought the same thing about calculators when they came out or 1990s internet. AI bots like chat GPT are just a tool.", ">\n\nAll this effectively does is train kids to accomplish goals of a type that do not exist in the real world in a situation they will never realistically encounter. A better goal is adjusting testing criteria to account for this.\nThere might be very specific sets of knowledge for which rote memorization is appropriate, and for those, the air gapped testing may be appropriate. But I believe those are the exception rather than the rule. By and large, teaching kids to effectively utilize the tools that will be available to them is what we should be doing.", ">\n\nImagine learning where the only books are hand written.\nThe printing press took out a huge amount of repetitive labor in the learning process.\nAI/ChatGPT stands a good chance of removing a huge amount knowledge labor which stands between an idea and the end product. Learning to use the AI to best effect the Idea->End Product Chain is more important than worrying about memorizing formulae we will likely never need to remember. \nThe effort to restrict ChatGPT is just education system worrying about their Cheese Being Moved.", ">\n\nThis just doesn't make any sense to me. You're arguing that we shouldn't allow students to use tools they would have at their disposal in a real working environment, and for what? Why wouldn't you want students to use every tool at their disposal? How exactly is handicapping them helping them to understand the coursework?\nA much better approach would be to fundamentally alter how we teach to better prepare them for the workforce. Encouraging collaboration and creative problem solving skills is much more practical and effective.", ">\n\nChatGPT may pass the Bar, but I highly doubt it will replace lawyers or other professionals. \nThe whole point of credentialing is to drive accountability. Anyone can study the law and cite precedent without a law degree. Actually representing a client in a court of law requires oversight and knowledge. ChatGPT isn't perfect - it will make mistakes from time to time. So who is responsible when it makes a mistake? When is a client (who is not familiar with the law) supposed to know that a mistake has been made on their behalf? For this reason, until ChatGPT is literally perfect you're always going to need a credentialed professional to review the output.\nFor the record, I think ChatGPT is wonderful. But it's a tool that people will use, not a full-fledged replacement for professionals. My employer (a Fortune 500 company) has already rejected its use for internal projects. IT has the website blocked.", ">\n\nThe kids that are educated without its use will fall behind in business when faced with kids that are using it to its fullest extent.\nYou've successfully made an argument for people to succeed in a test that is worthless in the real world. Its parameters don't match.", ">\n\nThe best way to educate children is to teach them skills and strategies that will actually serve them in the workplace of the future. \nChatGPT already has reached the point of replacing humans (See Buzzfeed news). If ChatGPT can take the test or do the homework then what value is that education going to be to these students? Especially older students will quickly see rote memorization as a waste of time and so yes they probably will cheat if they have the opportunity. Trying to force these things to be “learned” and prove that knowledge by brute force banning things is going to be a costly uphill battle.", ">\n\nWhat if we modify how essays are written by students, by asking them to include citations (which is something ChatGPT can’t do)?\nWe can’t stop new tools from making old methods obsolete. But we can focus on enhancing critical thinking of students in a stepwise manner. When a new tool is created, think about how you can adapt rather than resist it.", ">\n\nWhy not just train an ai to spot ai written papers?", ">\n\nWhat about gradually putting more emphasis on oral assignments?", ">\n\nEverything you said makes perfect sense...IF the goal was to teach children simply how to write the perfect standard essay. But that is a very limited way of viewing education and what its real goal is. The real goal of education is to teach children how to think. To come up with the right questions, not just the right answers. In a world where a \"good enough\" essay on literally anything can be conjured as if by magic by a machine, what's the actual value of that exercise now? For a very long time teachers have used the essay as a way to evaluate how a person thinks. Now that a machine can write it for you, we need new ways to evaluate how students think. That's the real task we are facing. Fuck the essay, just like we ditched the slide rule for calculators and later computers, etc. Tools change but the real game remains the same: Think for yourself!", ">\n\nI'd say the best way would be to accept the reality of changing technology and reevaluating the approach we have towards education as a whole.\nGranted, I'd say that's only one half of the picture: reassessing how we conceive if jobs and labour in the face of increasing automation goes along with that, and I think neither really works without the other.\nBottom line is that human labour is more and more obsolete as time goes on, so human jobs will be less and less in demand (I'd argue moving away from a capitalistic system is the right call, but even if you don't, automation is still an incentive).\nSince a large part of the incentive of our current education system is \"prepare you for a job\" I think the whole thing is going to fall short in light of these kinds of systems developing.\nTheres lots of people now who pursue knowledge as a project of passion, rather than a means to an end, and I think moving to a system that supports and encourages that kind of ambition is the way to go.", ">\n\nI disagree. We should learn to use the tools we have efficiently. Otherwise you are not learning for your career but for some professors ego", ">\n\nThat’s not “education in the era of ChatGPT.” That’s education in the era before ChatGPT while we figure out what the world with ChatGPT will look like so we have some idea of what to do with it.\nThat’s also not “educating,” that’s just “assessment.” Assessment is simply a measuring system for education. As long as you think of the acquisition of knowledge and skill as requiring knowledge regurgitation and skill performance in isolation and divorced from context/individualized, then you’re going to end up at necessitating a kind of geofenced, Luddite assessment model. The training itself predicates the assessment method. How we assess is defined by how we teach, and vice versa.\nThe best assessment method to gauge understanding is, and always has been, conversation.\nAll we need to do is pair assessment with regular conversation between qualified teacher and student to determine if personal comprehension is present. Not an interview, not an interrogation — conversation. Problem solving performance contexts are also great revealer of internalized knowledge and skill.\nChatGPT is a relative nonissue if your approach to assessment is at all human.\nIt’s only a problem when you’re trying to mechanize and dehumanized education. “Rigorous” does not mean “mechanical.” We are going to have to trust the professional, knowledge- and skill-assessing judgements of humans who already know and can do.\nEducation reverts to having more emphasis on apprenticeship and mentorship models, where the relationship itself is part of the learning process. \n(The “accountability!” cranks are gonna love that…)", ">\n\nI have a strong suspicion that discussions like this, while very interesting, will be obsolete long before any changes can actually be implemented in schools. In fact, I'm pretty sure schools will be gone entirely in the near future.\nAs of right now, you can be taught almost any subject by an exceptionally well-spoken, fast and infinitely patient teacher called GPT to a university level, if not higher. Try it right now - go ask GPT to explain the political situation that allowed Alexander the Great to conquer Persia, or ask it to explain the raytracing algorithm. If there's a part you don't understand, ask it to clarify. You'll be amazed how accessible it makes advanced topics.\nNow, how long before we have VR software with a realistic-looking AI teacher, with an AI-generated voice, who can do the same thing, but respond to students' voices and use body language and visual demonstrations? Five years?\nHow long after that before this tech is cheap, and of such high quality that sending your kids to school will be a worse education?\nNow in, say, 20 years, we could have an AI system that takes a DNA sample, analyses a students genotype to understand what subjects they will be naturally good at, what education approaches will be most successful, and continuously improves its model of the student's behavior by observing them. It crafts a decades-long education journey tailored to the individual, and accompanies them the entire way.\nTeachers, as far as they've existed so far, don't have a chance.", ">\n\nAre you trying to test someone or teach them?\nIf the latter, why do you care about cheating? This reminds me of the ol' teachers who used to restrict calculators because \"you won't always have a calculator with you.\"", ">\n\nYou forget that for 99% of homework students could just copy each other's work. Having the answers out in the world accessible is not a new problem. You just make homework a small part of the grades and you make sure students understand it's important to actually do it or they won't do well on the tests.", ">\n\nThere are so many people that can’t do the basic math examples you mentioned somewhere and they went to school at a time when there were no calculators.\nOn the other hand I was allowed to use calculators in school pretty much the moment I left elementary school and I am really quite good at math even without assistance.\nTool usage is one of humanities key features and trying to work against it instead of finding ways to incorporate new technology into school and life seems backwards.", ">\n\nIronically the teacher will have to use an AI to decipher the \"hand written\" assignments.", ">\n\nYou can't force people to learn.", ">\n\nWhat about teaching how to think rather than how to memorize? Just a thought 💭", ">\n\nThey need to get rid of homework, and have students do their work while they're at school. It's awful, they just pile it on, even if a class only has a little homework that day, there's like 6 or 7 classes so it's a nightmare for students. Seems like the only way to prevent cheating is have them do work in class, so I hope for the students sake, they do that.", ">\n\nI’ll throw my idea into the ring, though we’re still a few years off from this technology:\nWe should have students interact with AI tutors that can prompt them questions and point out details. Then they can collaborate on assignments, and the AI tutor can give feedback and suggest snippets. The AI can evaluate their work and their engagement with the material.", ">\n\nOne of Transformers main applications is in search. Ie you get a set of embeddings you can compare the pairwise distances between embedding and get a list of scores that tell you which embeddings are most similar to the input. \nEssentially tools like google are made to reduce the search space for a given query collect likely links and then rerank the most likely results. \nChatgpt basically does this in a more direct way of searching through a space of potential responses. Basically trained on a task to predict next token given the previous tokens or fill in a mask\nTransformers permeate everything students use from the recommendation algorithms on TikTok Facebook, YouTube to search systems in google. \nIn my opinion students should absolutely not be taught to fear these tools tho I do agree they be tested in constrained environments to challenge them. Current systems should not be used to learn unless you have a clear understanding and are willing to check every word and check your reasoning. Future systems will be much better though so this problem isn’t going anywhere. \nIf anything there should be a push to make these ideas more interpretable to a younger audience and give them the tools to navigate an increasingly complex market of ideas. They should be aware of the limitations and how when they use a piece of software their actions and the actions of those around them are influencing what they see next. \nIt should be used and taught with rigor. \nIt’s programming 2.0", ">\n\nDude no; \nChatGPT is the computer. \nDo you want to be the education system that banned the computer and then wondered why all the other education systems output modern tech workers, while your education system kept outputting chimney sweeps and car factory workers?", ">\n\nHW only exists to make students practice, and generally is worth less than 20% of the grade in a class. If a student chooses to use chat GPT to bypass it then that’s the student’s loss.\nUltimately exams are what schools use to evaluate a students knowledge and I don’t think that’s going to change anytime soon", ">\n\nThere are already programs that check if something was written by an AI or not. Also no student I know actually uses chatGPT for major assignments because chatGPT doesn’t know every text to ever be published so it doesn’t understand the context, and most of the time will just bullshit an answer that’s incorrect.\nEveryone I know that uses chatGPT for school do so for either for assignments so small and simple that it doesn’t make sense to quarantine, or they use it as a more advanced google that can answer questions more accurately than a search engine could, essentially just saving time.\n(most) students are using chatGPT largely as a productivity and time management tool rather than to cheat.", ">\n\nThis is like saying “in the age of calculators, the only way to ensure kids learn maths is to ban calculators in school”. If looked at correctly, chatgpt is an effect multiplier, learning just has to be rejigged to have kids learn to do things that they can’t simply ask chatgpt to do for them.", ">\n\nLess course work and more exams is the future in a world with chatGPT.", ">\n\nChatGPT will be a big no issue soon. I work in a research field and this was something we worried about last year. As of now there are multiple tools and even more being developed that catch the use of ChatGPT. There has been research published that list ChatGPT as a co-author, but for most research, and use by students, it will simply be forbidden and will easily be caught as well. The program does well but it has a particular style that can be caught. Again it will be a non-issue soon.", ">\n\nThis is like forbidding people to use a calculator because it can give you the result instant. A better way is to teach them how to use the calculator, because its here now and won't go away. Same with GPT. Children can learn way better/faster with ChatGPD if used correctly. Imaging having a private teacher for free which helps you learning every time of the day.", ">\n\nLet me ask you this. If ChatGPT could complete a students whole assignment, what would that student have learned from doing that assignment on their own that won’t simply be replaced with ChatGPT by a employer in the future?\nEven if ChatGPT doesn’t replace workers for a decade, why teach students skills that will inevitably be replaced and leave said students jobless in a decade?\nChatGPT won’t only be used in the workforce either. Linus Tech Tips has a video showing how ChatGPT can help people learn new skills and do troubleshooting on their own. If I remember correctly, he manages to completely build a pc by only strictly following what ChatGPT tells him to. It even managed to suggest the best parts for that computers specific use case. It was nowhere near perfect, but in the future it will get there.\nSince ChatGPT is such a useful tool in the workforce and at home, I think it’s crucial we teach students how to use it instead of banning them from it. Maybe students should be given a problem and tasked to use ChatGPT to find the solution or have students attempt to learn a new topic with ChatGPT. I’m not a teacher, I just thought of those examples of the top of my head. I’m sure qualified teachers could think of better assignments than me.\nI could see ChatGPT helping a mechanic diagnose an issue so the mechanic could spend more time fixing the problem rather than diagnosing and I can think of a few examples in other jobs as well where ChatGPT will help a worker be more efficient and save more time.\nI think, if anything, we’re setting students up for failure by not teaching them about these tools that will take over the workforce and help in everyday life.", ">\n\nYou’ll still have to pass a test. Relax.", ">\n\nIt “fairs” extremely well? Maybe some additional time spent observing ChatGPT could actually benefit some", ">\n\nThere’s just no way you can use ChatGPT to do all of your work for you and be successful at any moderately high level of academic pursuit. Not without learning the material yourself, and if you’ve done that, I don’t think it matters so much whether you used chatGPT and for what along the way.\nFrankly if you start our using chatGPT early in school, you won’t even be able to ask the right questions in the right way and include the necessary refinements to do more complex and demanding assignments down the road. \nAlso, tests are still a thing aren’t they? ChatGPT doesn’t help you perform in person in a monitored environment - not in a way that would allow you to skip learning the material. I don’t really get this aspect of your cmv. As long as tests don’t allow access to ChatGPT, anyone who didn’t learn the material is going to be exposed..", ">\n\nThere are already programs that detect ChatGPT writing.", ">\n\nThe children who want to cheat will always find a way to do so. It doesn’t matter how much you do to restrict it, it’ll just make them find new means of doing so. \nSource: I did GCSE’s in the UK, AP in the US. Trust, kids will cheat even in sterile environments. Especially if it’s a huge room and there are few moderators. A lot of us are scared of repercussions but those who aren’t won’t let anything stand in there way—region and proctoring be damned.", ">\n\nI require them to complete an outline first. Outline must be submitted to me before I take the essay. Google doc lets you see that they write it and when each sentence was written. It’s helped.", ">\n\nCHATGPT is a tool, and in some applications (not all), it can help students do their homework. Consider the calculator. Do students not need to learn formulas and critical thinking just because they can punch numbers into calculators?\nNo, math is still a skill that is valuable if for no other reason then because it trains your brain to solve problems.\nOne of the things that surprises me is that ChatGPT can use words and explain things to students even when a teacher is not available or when there isn’t one. we should consider this an educational opportunity rather than a disadvantage.\nThere are so many amazing things we humans can do when we simply have tools to help us. ChatGPT is no different.", ">\n\nYou can’t force people to live in the past. Chat GPT is here to stay. Education now needs to focus on teaching people how to use AI, and how to develop a skill that can’t be replaced by AI.", ">\n\nHow about getting students engaged in what they’re learning and excited to learn. Find what they’re good at and double down on it. Don’t make school a fucking quarantine bubble. Socialize, allow them to teach and learn from each other. Replace the potential for cheating with collaboration assignments in person. “Children will cheat if given the opportunity” is such horse shit. If somebody doesn’t know or wasn’t taught something well then yea they’re gonna look to get it right so they can obtain approval. How about teaching them so they won’t cheat??", ">\n\nThats not it. I don’t have an answer for you, but thats not it.", ">\n\nHow about just have the kids do a presentation on \"their\" report with Q&A at the end. They'll have no choice but to know the info.... which is the point.", ">\n\nWell, making an AI that detects if something was made by an AI shouldnt be hard", ">\n\nI wonder if anyone has tried training a machine to look at assignments and give a confidence interval of the assignment being either human or machine in origin.", ">\n\nYeah we call that stuff examns...", ">\n\nThe problem with your suggested approach is that it just reinforces the current failures of the education system. It doesn't actually teach us the skills that you will be able to use in the field. \n\nYou can look up formulas for physics and you can double check online for any coding questions. Chat gpt is a tool and I think forbidding students from using it will just be a disservice to them and everyone in the future. It's not going to go away any time soon so how about instead of teaching children to cheat more effectively, we teach them how to use chat gpt to its full potential? It can speed up so many tasks to such a degree that students will be able to recieve more advanced education in the time that was saved by using chat gpt", ">\n\nI mean, there are plenty of good reasons already said, but wouldn't it just be easy to cheat. You get home, ask Chat.gpt for a result, print it out. Bring it with you to the school quarantine, copy it into the computer. (Unless you would like a full strip search of the students upon entering, which is wrong in so many ways)", ">\n\nI could use this in my program all I wanted and pass courses with perfect scores, and at the end of my degree I’d have a licensure exam that I’d fail cause I didn’t learn anything.", ">\n\nGreat idea! While let's just ignore the real world and keep our heads in the sand. Let's also get rid of computers and ink pens and go back to stone and chisel!", ">\n\nInstead of asking students to write ...ask them to spot the mistakes and correct the essays.\nThat requires way more knowledge and mastership.", ">\n\nI feel like this is a modern day equivalent to saying that now that the internet is available at the family computer, students must complete their work entirely under supervision.\nAI is here and more that is better is coming and people need to learn how to integrate with it rather than fight it. It's going to take some jobs. Just like the cotton gin and steam drill took work from people who then immediately transitioned to other work that the machine couldn't do and to running to machine itself. People will need to run ChatGPT. Feed it, verify its output, clean it up and submit the report based on CGPT4.0's write up. Individuals need to know the material, sure, but we can't really keep students off the internet and trying to do so just wastes resources and makes teachers pull their hair out.", ">\n\nI think the problem lies deeper. Humans and especially children want to learn and understand. One of the most common words a 5 y/o uses is \"why\". \"Why do airplanes fly? Why is the sun bright? Why can't I have candy? Why isn't the house collapsing? It is bigger than my sandcastle that fell over.\" And the education system should be ashamed of itself that it kills this curiosity and motivation of the children. I don't want to go too deep into possible solutions. Just one anecdote from myself:\nWe had to produce an educational video. For that we got 20 hours time. We worked around 30, met at my apartment and filmed after a day off homeschooling. Nobody thought of cheating with chatgpt because we have the script our character. On the other hand: I should colour a heart now and I don't want to, so I don't do it.\nEveryone has their video and colouring schematics and we should encourage the prior to the latter, making the demand for cheating less important \nAlso we sent around our homeworks all the time. The concept of homework isn't great at all", ">\n\nHomeschool. Problem solved." ]
> How is ChatGPT different than what Math teachers had to go through when calculators become a thing? At first, they banned them "because the students have to learn the material!" Students rebelled because "We'll always have a calculator available." Eventually, teachers relented and now allow calculators in the class. Do you see the trajectory of ChatGPT going any different? As for ChatGPT improving, if everybody is using it then it won't be able to improve because the only new input will just be reinforcing feedback from its own work. As for children cheating, how is using ChatGPT different than any other sort of plagiarism detection that teachers already have to deal with? Also, the makers of ChatGPT also provide a tool that will tell you if a particular work product was produced by it. Isn't that good enough of a deterrent? Air gapping the kids from legitimate research material seems to be a bit extreme to me.	[ "/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^\| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.", ">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?", ">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.", ">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?", ">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.", ">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?", ">\n\nYou mean a grade?", ">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication", ">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.", ">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)", ">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.", ">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.", ">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.", ">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.", ">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?", ">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.", ">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.", ">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.", ">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.", ">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.", ">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.", ">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.", ">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.", ">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.", ">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.", ">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.", ">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.", ">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.", ">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use", ">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.", ">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.", ">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.", ">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.", ">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.", ">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.", ">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.", ">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).", ">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.", ">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.", ">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.", ">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.", ">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.", ">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.", ">\n\n\nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \n\nWhy? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it. \n\nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \n\nWhy? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? \nLet's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project. \n\nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.\n\nTotally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator.", ">\n\nFor the most part, knowledge workers perform a given amount of work in a given amount of hours, and the number of them hired by a company is TotalHoursNeeded/NumHoursPerEmployee. E.g. if you have 100 manyears of work to get done in a typical year, you employ 100 people.\nChat GPT isn't going to \"replace\" people wholesale, because as you say someone still needs to supervise it. But it looks to be on track to increase the productivity of programmers (can write a first draft of code and finds many of the bugs instantly). \nSame for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones. \nSo now the TotalNeeded is decreased by some percentage, let's say 10% to start. Now you only need 90 human programmers to do that same work. With 25% efficiency gain, you need 75. With 50%, 50. Etc. \nOr take translation jobs. Today, an editor spends roughly 3 minutes per word editing machine translated text, and 1 minute per word editing human-translated text. As long as editors are more expensive per hour than first translation people, it still makes sense much of the time to hire translators, because the software isn't free. \nBut the graph of machine translation \"efficiency\" is trending towards taking the same amount of time to edit as a human translator. As soon as that's hit, there's literally no reason to hire human translators, only editors. \nAnd if the editing time goes down to 30 seconds/word because of further AI assistance to the editor, you only need half as many of those.", ">\n\nThere is currently two better solutions being worked on - one of which is already being used to some degree. \nThe first is ChatGPT developers themselves making moves to make AI written works to be identified by \"watermark\" or similar. I don't thi k this one has taken effect at all yet. \nAnother is by a separate dev team that allows teachers to use software to determine the amount of an essay, for example, that is written by AI what the likelihood of any one sentence or paragraph to have been written by AI. This allows the teachers to use discretion when determining if the student used the AI in a way that they find acceptable or not. This way instead kf running from the scary AI educators can actually utilize tyhe AI with students to help them develop their writing and other communications.", ">\n\nWhat about kids with transportation issues? When I was in school I knew kids that drove almost an hour each way to get there. I certainly couldn’t have asked my parents to drop everything to take me all the way to school so I could do my homework if I forgot. Bus schedules? Do you think schools want to waste more money by burning more gas for extra routes? I understand where you’re coming from, but for a fair amount of children—especially in poorer, more rural areas—that getting to school and back is such a delicate balancing act that such a thing would just punish them.", ">\n\nI've seen a few key things from academics testing out ChatGPT (I have not signed up myself):\n\nIt tends to produce confident, convincing nonsense. It doesn't actually understand what it's writing about, and I hear it shows.\nIt makes up citations. Real authors in the field, real journals... but made-up titles. Things like that, since, again, it doesn't actually understand citations.\n\nThis suggests that, for assignments requiring the demonstration of genuine, in-depth understanding, and not merely the ability to summarize facts, ChatGPT will fail.\nA similar example that you bring up in the comments is programming cheat sheets into calculators - but for well-designed engineering exams (including the licensure exams, at least in the US), cheat sheets are fine and often either allowed or provided. A well-designed exam tests the ability to apply principles, not knowledge of equations, so a cheat sheet is harmless, or even allows the exam to work better (since people aren't distracted with memorizing equations).", ">\n\nThere are three criticisms that I have of this approach. \n\n\nShould we not teach to the environment that we live in? Yes, education often imposes arbitrary constraints like time tests but for research and reports why not let people use and work around all resources? If you can work around chat gpt to work efficiently, then do it. You learn what it can and can’t do and how to use it effectively as a tool. \n\n\nCan chatGPT on it’s own actually write a good essay? From what I have seen it can pull together a few sources. It can generally write fluff based on other things that it has seen. But it struggles to write analysis. It can’t interrogate a source or make value judgements. It could be useful for doing some filler or providing ideas but if to do an actual report, I think it would be insufficient. \n\n\nAn assignment that can be done using chatgpt is probably boring. Here I am writing an essay for no reason other than I find it interesting to discuss this topic. Perhaps, we arent giving students interesting enough assignments or we are overloading them to the point that they don’t have the time to engage? If chatGPT turns out to be an issue maybe it’s more of an indictment of the structures and norms of education.", ">\n\n\n\nhomework in the form of essays, take home tests, coding assignments, would be completed on school grounds. \n\n\nCongratulations, you've invented the \"cram school\".\nI'd recommend reading through your post again and actually thinking about the things you've said. Because essentially, you're merely advocating for the wholesale elimination of homework and for education outside of that to remain totally unchanged. It's almost literally, \"Make the school day 30% longer\".\nMy solution to the \"problem\" of students potentially using ChatGPT to cheat on homework: I don't think you need a hilariously convoluted system of homework \"boiler rooms\" redolent of national security apparatus, that requires schools to adopt ruinously expensive and disruptive technological and administrative changes.\nIt would be sufficient if we institute a system whereby teachers are encouraged to, let's say... \"test\" their students, whether by regular written exams or by talking to them in what I'll call \"classes\", to ensure they understand the material they've been assigned to learn.\nThis method ensures that students cannot use AI homework bots to coast through classes (since they'll literally be found out the very next class), and has the added benefit of not adding three hours to every teacher's day.", ">\n\nWhat about pen and ink?", ">\n\narguably I can just copy a ChatGPT output by hand. So I think that is a first level measure, but not a complete solution.", ">\n\nIt's a better solution than prison just because the curriculum can't keep up with technology.\nWhen calculators arrived on everyone's phone and everyone's pocket did you advocate for the same solution? Unlikely, so why only now with this system?", ">\n\nWell I did and I was. When I was studying engineering in the 80s we routinely could not arrive at exams with a calculator. Even then calculators were programmable enough to allow students to write cheat sheets in calculator memory.\nIt forced us to memorize equations, principals of engineering, and independent thinking. I’m a better engineer because I did.", ">\n\nSo you're what, almost 60? And you think what's best for children is to be like you? Don't you think you may be a bit out of touch?\nAlso, your view was about K12 students, not engineering students.", ">\n\nNo. As I replied, leaning on tools as a crutch all your life will limit your ability and function as a human. For example, you could argue that basic math isn’t necessary. As matter of fact that was an argument years ago with the advent of calculators.\nHowever, humans should be able to exist and functions without a digital crutch. You should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator. You should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google. There are basic elements of duration necessary since we are all still wet grey matter.", ">\n\n\nYou should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator\n\nBut why?\n\nYou should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google\n\nAgain, why?\nWhere do you get your \"should\" from?\nI have basically all human knowledge in my hand, every equation or conversion I'll ever need day to day, even every language I'll likely ever encounter. Why shouldn't I leave my brain free to think about what it wants and to use my incredible resource as and when it's needed?\nDo you envision some Saw-like situation where you're locked to a wall and need to solve maths equations at pain of death?", ">\n\nThe less you use your brain the less likely your body is to maintain it. Our body functions through a use or lose it principle. Just look people who lose movement function/muscle just by being bedridden for a long time. Our brain is not different.\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.", ">\n\nIs wasting resources on process you can deletage outside not using your brain? You free up that space to put to what you decide is important.\n\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.\n\nThe weakest man with a gun can take out the strongest bodybuilder.", ">\n\nAnd if you decide Tik tok and Netflix are important? How do you think that will affect the cognitive ability of kids?\nI didn't mention strength nor physical strength. And even then the strongest man with a gun will probably take out the weakest man with a gun.(An actual fair comparison)", ">\n\nCouldn't chatgpt (or somesuch AI) be asked \"Hey - did you write this?\" and nip this sort of thing in the bud?", ">\n\nNo, Chat GPT doesn't remember everything it's said, the potential things it could say are huge and even if someone wrote something that Chat GPT might say, it could be a coincidence.", ">\n\nWell, strike that idea then.\nStill though - there must be some way to use AI to deal with this. \"set a thief to catch a thief\" and all that.", ">\n\nChat GPT (and most generative AIs) use GANs to generate content. \nIn laymen's terms (and extremely simplified as it's above my level of understanding) a GAN is 2 AI systems competing against each other, a creator AI that creates content and a checker AI that decides if the content was genuine or made by the other AI. \nSo any automated way to tell if it's AI generated can be built into the checker AI in future versions and the creator AI will learn to avoid whichever features the checker AI is spotting.", ">\n\nChatGPT is just another mechanism for reducing the need for labor, and it's not going away. \nChildren will need to be educated in both how to make effective use of it (for as long as it's not sufficient to completely eliminate mental labor), and also in the ethics of not using it. Always forcing them to write in airgapped places isn't going to do that, it just makes them resent it. \nAlso: essay writing on a scale needed to really learn long-form writing is not very amenable to doing in an airgapped classroom, because honestly we're not using dead-tree sources of information anymore already, so doing their research pretty much has to include doing it on line. \nBut really: laborious manual long-form essay writing is going to go the way of penmanship and looking things up in a library as an unneeded skill very quickly. We need children to adjust to that reality of the modern world rather than pretending it will go away. \nPeople are still needed (for now) to do the important part of writing essays without doing the laborious bit that ChatGPT automates anyway: deciding what to write, and editing it into a convincing and well-written form. \nForcing kids to spend a lot of time learning how to write the basic bulk part of essays is a lot like teaching them how to make buggy-whips in shop class: a pointless exercise. \nIt would be better to give them all prewritten ChatGPT essays and have them learn the limitations and capabilities.", ">\n\nIs ChatGPT really that much more effective than just grabbing things off Wikipedia? I was asking it things about elections and it was just Wikipedia from two years ago", ">\n\nThe answer is NEVER to limit technology. It’s to teach the new generation how to use that technology to achieve the same goal.\nIt’s pointless to ban computers and teach the memorization of dates in history class. It’s much more productive to teach online research skills so that if an individual needs to know the date of a particular moment in history, they can reliably Google it.\nChatGPT is the same. It renders writing essays as pointless, and it necessitates the teachers to adapt to new teaching styles, such as teaching the skills on how best to manipulate ChatGPT to return the information you need.", ">\n\nI was banned from using programming calculators when I studied engineering in the 80s during exams. It forced the students to all be on the same level playing field and forced us to actually know the equations, their applications, and the processes of whatever engineering course I was taking.\nIt made us better engineers.", ">\n\nHow does handicapping you make you a better engineer? If I put you and an engineer trained with technology in the same room together, who do you think would accomplish the task faster?", ">\n\nThe handicapped engineer, easily. The point of forcing students to actually learn the material is so that they understand how to reason about the underlying processes when they need to troubleshoot something going wrong, and understand the tradeoffs between approaches and how to select the best one for the task. \nOnce you understand things deeply you don't actually need training in doing things quickly because it's immediately intuitive how to apply a technological process to save time. The guy that leaned heavily on technology is basically fucked if he has to use a technique or software that he didn't specifically train on since he doesn't have a good foundation to abstract from. It would be more appropriate to call this person a technician.", ">\n\nThe purpose of calculators is to do the menial part of the work, not to solve whole processes. The engineer that learned with calculators likely knows how to select the right process to solve a problem, but uses the calculator to do the math faster and with fewer errors.", ">\n\nAt the college level, we’re not talking about tools to add and multiply. We’re talking about tools like Wolfram Alpha that do entire symbolic manipulations for you. If I took a calculus class and on all the assignments used Wolfram Alpha to find derivatives, do you think I would have learned anything?\nThat is what ChatGPT is doing for essays", ">\n\nThere are things called pencil and paper.", ">\n\nAs I said, this is the first line defense. However as I already commented to another user. I can simply hand copy ChatGPT output. Essentially not doing my own independent research, writing, coding, and studying.", ">\n\nWhy don't you consider that research? \nThe first source was the best. It's incredibly efficient research IMO.", ">\n\nThe idea of tool removal has always been flawed. From calculators to chat GPT and beyond. If your test is so flimsy that a simple tool invalidates it then the test is poorly built. Test shouldn't be simple busywork tasks, they should require thinking, problem solving, complex thought. If it's just a game of memorization that can be cheated by answers on a paper, you've built a bad test.\nover memorization (which is what our current school systems teach) is not only unhelpful, but also harmful. We live in an era of wikipedia being a reliable source, of vast access to tools both online and phsycial. We should be teaching kids they should do the work but with the help of those tools, not despite them.\nThe main issue with your argument is that based on what you've said, i can assume you think the current school system is a good one but so many studies have shown that at least here in the US, the school systems are some of the worst in the world. It's this memorize, ignore tools, singular focus mentality that plays such a big role.\nIf we were more creative with education, incorporating tool utilization into the learning process, we'd likely have a major improvement to our educational successes. I could go on about how the education system prefers certain kinds of students over others, and how many students are left behind simply because they don't learn like other kids and are therefore punished, but I won't. All I'll say is that more restrictions on how and what kids learn isn't going to help them learn more or better.\nand in 15 years when chat GPT is a part of daily life in every single company on the planet in some way or another (which I'm beyond certain it will be), kids who were taught how to properly utilize it will have just such a huge advantage in the workforce over those who weren't", ">\n\nRather than attempt to find ways to prevent new technology from interfering with existing pedagogy, shouldn't we review and revise pedagogy as new technology develops? \nIf a chat AI program can write these things, what is the point of having humans repeatedly do the same work? We don't expect people to use an abacus when doing math, or limit their research to what's in the library card catalogue, or require printed paper publications as essay resources; we adapted to the calculator, and to the internet and search engines. So too should we adapt to things like ChatGPT, not by trying to pretend it doesn't exist, but by finding ways to incorporate it into a more holistic approach to learning.\nRather than chain kids to an airgapped room on school grounds outside of school hours to do homework that's of dubious educational value in the first place, we should take this as an opportunity to refocus schooling on in-class engagement and direct instruction. ChatGPT and programs like it are showing us yet another thing we as humans can outsource to our technology, so why struggle to do things in a more difficult and inefficient way?", ">\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\nIn addition, AI is only as good as the data it is fed. You must still be able to do the work on your own to analyze when the AI is giving valid outputs (garbage in, garbage out). This is especially true, when AI runs the risks of being owned or operated by those with a specific agenda. Can you imagine the trouble that would result if people relied on AI to determine who to vote for, but someone was able to pay the operators to have the AI promote them?\nRelying on AI to do our work for us is a distillation of an appeal to authority fallacy on a large scale (if the AI says it, it must be true).", ">\n\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\n\nThis is something I worry about A LOT when it comes to AI. Our collective understanding of the subjects that we usually classify as \"the humanities\" is constantly evolving as we learn more, and especially as a more diverse set of people are allowed to study, research and put forth opinions and arguments.\nImagine if students were outsourcing all their history, psychology, sociology and philosophy homework to a chatbot with a 1950s understanding of those subjects.\nImagine doctors outsourcing psych patient diagnoses to a chatbot with the same understanding.\nOn an arguably less \"serious\" but still critically important moral and political topic, imagine if all/most videogame art was outsourced to an AI engine with a 1990s sensibility for female characters. Same for all kinds of representation and diversity.\nHow about politics and political science in general... ha!\nEtc, etc etc.\nIt is NOT the case that we already have discovered all the true answers to the big questions, and we can merely turn to a \"knowledge calculator\" like ChatGPT to spit out the truth.\nEven if AI can pretty accurately reflect the discourse of the day, as it is currently understood and accepted, our collective knowledge and culture will stagnate if we do not actively participate in developing it, and we will all pay the price for that.", ">\n\nThese are all moralistic arguments that ultimately don’t mean anything.", ">\n\nI would say they are more epistemic arguments, which do matter greatly in the context of education (which is what the op was referring to).", ">\n\nAre any of these things mentioned actually realistic concerns? Someone is going to train an AI bot to generate 90s female art characters with big tits?\nNo. Lol and even if someone did, who cares?", ">\n\nConsidering how many people believe obviously fake stories that have no supporting evidence (and in spite of contrary evidence), yes, I believe they are very real concerns.\nIf an AI says we should use Brawndo in farming because its got what plants crave (electrolytes), we should probably be able to justify it with reasoning beyond \"the AI says so.\"", ">\n\nWho is suggesting we do anything “just because an AI said so”? \nDo you read books and think everything in it is true “because the book says so”?", ">\n\nHow do you determine if what the book/ai said is false?\nYou would typically do it through a process of research and discovery.\nPeoples' ability to do research and discovery will be greatly diminished if we rely on AI to do those things for us (which is what the previous posters were suggesting).\nTherefore, reliance on AI will lead to us losing the ability to discern if the results of what the AI is saying is correct.", ">\n\nWhat? Lol that doesn’t make any sense at all. \nIt is not like if we use AI then all previous knowledge is simply forgotten or lost. It’s all still there.", ">\n\nForcing homework at school makes that \"not homework\", and this approach has never worked. You cant reject change, it never works. Every time there has been a game changing event, people adapted. Those who tried to reject change disappeared. Horse carriages disappeared from roads because something else replaced it. Some people supposedly rejected progress, but they are lying to themselves, they still use modern tech or services at some point.\nAnyway, the change is here, and it made essays irrelevant. Time to find another way to test people skills. \nGive it a little time though. ChatGPT costs a ginormous amount of money to run and will not stay free for long either.", ">\n\nIt's not just ChatGPT, the actual innovation is not the interface but lies in algorithms that can recreate natural language of similar quality with smaller data samples. There are also OpenSource datasets like ThePile, etc. so even if OpenAI moves to a paid model (and they will, quickly. You can already sign up to be first in line for the API), there will be other free providers.", ">\n\nHaving coded AIs, I disagree. ChatGPT is a regular trained AI. The novelty is the scale of the operation, and the fact there is a public API.\nNo one ever spent that much money on resources to run and train an AI publicly. I am pretty sure google has done something similar with user data sets to make their search engine and general ecosystem.\nI wish there was a way to have algorithms working with smaller data sets and produce similar results, but it kind of does not work that way.", ">\n\nThere are already tools to identify ChatGPT generated texts. Such tools will improve as another use of literally the same technology.\nJust as teachers submit essays for identifying plagiarism, teachers will submit essays for identifying AI-generated text. \nFurther, a focus could change from grading students on what they know to grading students' ability to ask meaningful, content-based questions about the subject. After all, knowing facts isn't particularly valuable as a skill. Integrating facts and discovering valuable questions is still something that remains a uniquely human skill. And is where people will continue to add value as AI becomes more advanced.", ">\n\nStudents have always been able to 'cheat' on work done outside the classroom, by copying or somehow getting others to do their work for them, even before the internet. Yes with more advanced modern technology it is easier but this has always been a concern. \nAs regular learning environments like supervised classrooms are already 'quarantined' in the way you descibe you are fundementally just suggesting an increase in learning hours as a supplement to homework. This has been suggested by many for various reasons but it would overall cuase more issues than it fixes. It increases work load on teachers and administrators, stretching already thin educational budgets, and forces increased mental strain on children. It would limit their ability to do other recreational and out of ciriculum activities. This would be disruptive and controlling when the quantity of teaching and learning time that children recive is already considered sufficiant for a good education.", ">\n\nHell the only thing stopping me from using ChatGPT regularly for my work now is that it's always at capacity.", ">\n\nApply tests that are hand written, doesnt matter how a person obtains the knowledge, actually learning the subject is most important thing.", ">\n\nThere is no amount of ChatGPT that could influence a good old oral exam where the teacher evaluates the understanding via a little chat.", ">\n\nSo tired of this view. We shouldn’t be fighting technology. Teach kids to use the resources they have to find answers. It’s such a waste of 12 years of school, teaching kids to memorize facts and follow rules. \nInstead, every test should be open book and reward the best answers. Ask the kids to show their work or explain their thought process so we reward understanding of a topic rather than memorization of steps or text.", ">\n\n20 years ago, there were already homework communities and learn groups. Even from the publishers of school books and with free access to tutors. Ok, they didnt do the final homework for me, but gave me a great starting point.\nBeing the kid who transcribes a wiki page was already stupid back then when others could call you out:\nBut I guess the actual problem is lack of digital literacy with teachers, they're always 5-10 years behind.", ">\n\nIf you are testing skills that can be done by free tools on the internet, then you are testing irrelevant skills.\nThe best way to educate kids is to test for skills they need, not skills they objectively don't.\nI was able to witness a couple of universities adapt to tests during quarantine, and follow reports on how the new methods would be used going forward.\nThe results where thus:\nMass offline testing is incredibly cost efficient (one examiner per ~300 students), but the tests results are a poor indicator of real world performance.\nOne to One testing is incredibly expensive, but can, when done right, test actual understanding and performance.\nBoth will be useful, of course. Mass testing is most useful when used in a way that students aren't incentivized to cheat, such as when framed as practice.", ">\n\nOne of the upsides of needing to prevent this kind of tech from cheating assignments is that teachers should focus on having students be able to do their homework at school. (As a former teacher, we were trying to do this already- no more than 15 min of homework per class). \nI dont think we need to do quite what you say. We just need to limit outside electronics and have in-person classrooms or computer labs with programs designed to be AI-proof. \nI have ALWAYS believed that cell phones/internet watches should be stored in school lockers (at most) and never allowed anywhere else on campus during the school day. If anyone needs to contact the students they contact the desk who relays their message/other need. Many schools already do this.", ">\n\n∆\nI agree with this. It would help.", ">\n\nThank you!", ">\n\nThat is utterly pointless.\nThere is no reason to limit the available tools.\nThis just reminds me of the entire \"you won't have a calculator wherever you go\" argument.\nSchool should instead put a focus on responsibly using available tools.", ">\n\nAnd if students choose to use them irresponsibly, what should schools do?\nAnd can you please define what constitutes responsible use? Because despite knowing about plagiarism, people still copy and paste from the internet. Perfect abstinence is easier than perfect moderation after all.", ">\n\nJust return to hand written essays and have more oral exams.", ">\n\n∆l\nActually of all comments having oral exams compliments my post and I agree with you. Enjoy the delta.", ">\n\nIn a Faraday cage.", ">\n\nIf children can just generate work with ChatGPT, it simply shows that children are not being taught anything valuable. (Once ChatGPT responses can be generated in almost unlimited amounts at very low cost, it necessarily means those responses are of low value)\nInstead shouldn't we be teaching children to provide more valuable outcomes that ChatGPT can't replicate?", ">\n\nBeing able to do on your own what ChatGPT does with access to an immense amount of data and processing power is valuable. The actual writing isn't valuable, obviously, but it would be silly to expect it to be. It's just a side effect of practice, you spend time making things of little or no value to build up the skills you'll need to make something that actually matters. That's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\nI think you'd be hard pressed to teach a class of children to outperform ChatGPT in writing without ever asking them to write something that could also be done via AI. What would that even look like?", ">\n\n\nThat's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\n\nIt is a problem. That is why I hated math class until 2nd year of university.", ">\n\nDid you start discovering novel math results in your second year of university, or was that just the point at which you first encountered problems you found interesting, despite the fact that someone else had already solved them before? Thinking back the class you didn't hate, do you think it should be removed if someone can construct an AI to give all the answers you gave?", ">\n\nThis is only a method for evaluating students, it doesn't do anything to educate them.\nChatgpt is potentially a great tool for education but trying to find complex ways around it for homework is pointless. When testing fact retention is required using school/university computers with no web browsing makes sense. For any other test or situation it's a tool that might be used.", ">\n\nI understand OPs concern. That said, I do not think you can create true quarantine for a multitude of reasons. \nThe biggest one is probably time. I worked through high school and university. Because I lived in the middle of nowhere it was about a 30 min drive to high school and then an hour to uni. Having to stay at these quarantine zones to complete assignments would have been hell on my schedule, car, and wallet. \nYou said it yourself, if someone is going to cheat, they will cheat. If I had to do the work in a quarantine zone, what exactly stops me from doing the actual work on my computer at home, printing it all out, and then just writing that into the computer at the quarantine zone? Unless you want to try having students write an entire essay in their hour long class? There has to be a point where they go home and then this falls apart.", ">\n\nThere are already lots of ways to cheat in homework and mostly our steps to deal with that amount to the honour system, and by university level, automated plagiarism detection (which can be quite easily avoided). The point you \"won't argue\" that people will cheat if given the opportunity is probably the actual crux of what's wrong with your suggestion and the part that needs a big [citation needed]. Concluding that the majority of people are fundamentally dishonest is a big assumption to handwave away. \nIf you want an education, cheating is stupid. Ultimately you might get a paper qualification out of it but you'll have actually learned nothing - you won't hold up long against someone who has done it properly when you actually have to apply the skills. Or if you do, then the assignments weren't that crucial to the learning in the first place.", ">\n\nMany of the things I learned in school were largely irrelevant. I couldn't use a calculator to do long division. After I passed those early elementary school years I never did long division again. I wouldn't even argue learning the long division algo is mandatory. It's nice to have learnt it I guess, but I spent way too many hours on it. I can see learning fundamentals of essay writing, etc, are great, but why can't we just evolve to learn more effective things in life? ChatGPT should be used as a tool, not viewed as a detriment.", ">\n\nIt'd suggest that the best way to educate them is to embrace ChatGBT and teach them to use it well. Your method is a bit like teaching kids to do math without calculators or accounting without excel or financial software. There is some value, but it runs out very quickly and you're at a social and competetive disadvantage for taking some archane principled approach to education that is more of a defense of \"how we used to do it\".\nI'm old enough to remember when using a word processor was sometime forbidden for reasons of fairness - that seems entirely disconnected now from doing good work and it's almost hard to envision the thought process of those who thought everything should be hand written for students. \nIsn't the kid who is amazing at utilizing tools like ChatGBT going to do much better in the world than the one who does not? Your idea of \"proper education\" would easily regress back to needing to do all subjects scrawled in dirt with sticks and grunted in non-standardized language.", ">\n\nOR, chatgpt will be a great boon to the entire education system:\nIncreased accessibility: ChatGPT and other AI-powered systems can provide education to individuals who otherwise would not have access to it, due to geographical, financial, or other barriers.\n\nPersonalized learning: ChatGPT can provide personalized education experiences based on each student's strengths, weaknesses, and learning style.\n\n24/7 availability: ChatGPT can operate 24/7, providing students with access to education at any time, anywhere, which can be especially beneficial for those with demanding schedules or for individuals in remote areas.\n\nScalability: ChatGPT can provide education to a large number of students simultaneously, which could help to address the shortage of teachers and resources in some areas.\n\nCost-effectiveness: ChatGPT can be a more cost-effective option for providing education compared to traditional methods, as it does not require physical classrooms or teachers.\n\nImproved student engagement: ChatGPT can provide interactive, engaging learning experiences that can hold students' attention and foster deeper learning.\n\n--Source: ChatGPT", ">\n\nThere a lots of places where texts and exams are “open book”. The questions have to be written differently, and the point is that you’re not testing someone’s ability to memorize, but rather their ability to understand. This is a more difficult test to write, so in theory AI could force education to improve since everyone would a virtual tutor with them at all times.", ">\n\nI'm a teacher and I've been thinking a lot about this the last couple months. Changes within the education system/curriculum/syllabus/retraining of teachers will take far too long to keep up with the ease of access to, and success of, chatgpt and AI in general. \nThe only solution moving forward both short and long term is to embrace it, there is no stopping it now anyway and if we don't all want to be out of a job in 5 years we need to - \n- demonstrate feasible/moral/ethical use of such tools\n- create more opportunities for collaborative learning/hands-on/problem solving tasks and ones that increase communication skills between peers. \nHow this applies to each individual, specific task will vary and must require a lot of creativity and trial and error, but I think relying too heavily on your department of education to handle this (or most 'boots on the ground' problems) will ultimately only degrade a students experience and ability for learning.", ">\n\nI'm with you on what you're trying to accomplish. I just don't know that it's the \"best\" way. \nFor instance, how is homework performed in school superior to trusting the kids to learn the material, which would then be tested by oral exam? And yes, I do believe that asking a student to verbally explain a topic is a really good way to gauge mastery.", ">\n\nThere is not a hope in hell that we'll go back to hand written stuff. That's not how technology works. As the music companies. There are better ways to show you know a subject, for sure, than the current out of-date ones. That's for sure. Have you ever taken an on-line exam?", ">\n\nI argue to let them use chatGPT as it will be their future. This is similar to my generations \"you'll never walk around with a calculator so learn math.\" The future children will grow into a society where work means utilizing AI tech to help them thrive. If chatGPT helps them write an essay, and it's good, it means they're using resources. I agree, however, that we should supplement this with actual reading and writing.", ">\n\nI would argue that most of time that ChatGPT and similar technologies is going to be an issue is in 8-12 grade and college.\nThis technology is not going away, and it's only going to improve. Personally I would treat it like calculators, audio books and spell check.\nTech kids how to use the technology properly. Sure it's somewhat handy to calculate numbers in your head, but having the ability to do math in your head does not give you much of an advantage in today's world and not being able to doesn't hurt you much. But it's still critical to know formulas and how to peace together algebraic statements and word problems. \nKnowing how to spell properly is less important than knowing proper word usage - most times you're writing something it can be spell-checked in real time. Sure it's \"terrible that today's kids...\" don't know how to spell... but it's not going to affect their career. \nEnter ChatGPT - same thing. Should I spend the time to write a white paper on the changing advertising landscape to alert my boss about the a potential seismic shift in advertising revenue, or should I ask ChatGPT to write it? As a user I have to understand its limits and potential copywrite issues, but even more importantly how to verify that what it writes is correct and targeting the right audience. Is data from before 2020 going to be recent and accurate enough for my thesis? How do I supplement the discussion with real-world data? \nThis is our new reality. We should be learning how to use the tools properly, not trying to figure out to lock it down (which frankly makes as much sense as locking down the use of calculators or spell check).", ">\n\nI think there are already apps in place that are able to detect AI generated text (Read this article).\nAlso, I think a better method would be to simply have a database of ChatGPT (could be encrypted) generated text and make it available to already existing software that is use to detect plagiarism (this is just an exemple amongst many)", ">\n\nFrankly I don’t think high schoolers and below should be given homework or tests at all. One learns magnitudes better through exploration as opposed to mindless repetition. Engage with these kids intellectually, make them free thinking Athenians, not bags of knowledge of which they have no idea how to use.\nDoes it not surprise anyone that we train people for over a decade in intellect yet hardly have any intellectuals?", ">\n\nI would argue that society would be better off spending resources on teaching children how to use this tool effectively. Knowing how to get the right answer is what matters in this world.", ">\n\nThen answer this: Well why learn math at all? Seriously.\nWhy learn he concept of subtraction let alone division? I could and society has argued that with the advent of digital calculators. \nYet we learn it. \nLater we use calculators to take the mundane and already known processes to the next level. We abstract away the mundane. \nAs a EE having worked and am working on products you may be using right now to read this, when I develop new silicon and chips I don’t break out Karnaugh maps and lay down circuit using a T square and stencils of gates. But I sure the hell know what I’m doing and expect the tools to do for me. \nTeaching fundamentals of reading, writing, arithmetic, essays, research are just that fundamental.", ">\n\nI’d argue that the vast majority don’t need anything beyond basic math anyways. \nGo ask the average adult if they know the quadratic equation and what it means and you’d probably be disappointed.", ">\n\nChatGPT is here to stay, you'd better advocate for teaching people how to make the most of it and use it wisely instead of pretending it doesn't exist.\nOne of my favourite teachers always told students to use the best tools there are.", ">\n\nI think it depends completely on the topic. In my field of study, it’s fairly easy to come up with term paper assignments that the bot would be useless for. \nLooking back at the paper I wrote last year, I don’t see how any current bot could have helped, as it isn’t able to read or summarize specific sources (yet?).\nAn example of the type of assignments we get is “Discuss the role of state capacity in x and x conflict in light of (specific research paper)‘s dimensions of state capacity - do your findings confirm the findings of (authors), why or why not?\nThis way of combining literature made it difficult even for me to be on top of it, as there were no sources that had attempted this exact combination - it has to be original. \nAlso, I find it’s the best way to learn, because you have to rely on your own judgement and there are no shortcuts, even asking the professor was unhelpful as he wasn’t too familiar with the details.", ">\n\nThis is not the best way.", ">\n\n\nThese homework rooms would have Internet connected computers for use but access to ChatGPT would be filtered and blocked.\n\nThis wouldn't be feasible, there's far too many roundabout ways to still access ChatGPT. Security measures like domain filtering are just unproductive games of whack-a-mole. \nEdit: removed all the other stuff I wrote, as those points have already been mentioned in previous top-level comments.", ">\n\nHomework shouldn’t be the go-to method of “education” to begin with. Imo Universities should focus on the integral part of education: the lectures. Tools like chatgpt can help student who are actually interested in a subject to learn more easily about it, but whether students actually learn anything or not from a class won’t change regardless of if work is authentic or copied from an AI\nSource: I’m a college student and have had experience in both supervised environments where we had to do work without the use of computers/phones and solely-online environments where many students cheated", ">\n\nWhile this could work, it is not necessarily the best way in terms of accessibility and of learning in general. \nFirst, students with ADHD and certain other conditions may not necessarily be the able to be productive at all times, or at the specific time they have to work on those computers, especially if those computers are not in an environment ideal to that specific person. It would also not be very feasible to give students enough time on these computers to complete the bigger assignments and essays. \nSecond, while ChatGPT is quite advanced, it simply works by looking at language patterns and often gets factual details incorrect. For example, with bigger coding problems, it tries to import modules that do not exist or call on functions that it has not defined. In literature, it cannot analyze texts on much more than a surface level. I will admit it can use secondary sources for textual analysis, however, it is unable to come up with a clear thesis on its own. \nAdditionally, take-home tests can be just as easily cheated on using a normal Google search, and usually test thinking skills rather than understanding and knowledge. \nFinally, essay-writing and other types of assignments are generally not ideal for learning as they are only one type of skill, and university professors are recognizing this. Not only do they not work for all learning styles, but they are only used so commonly because of tradition. University professors are structuring assignments around ways that are innovative enough that ChatGPT is unable to work on them. Along with requiring specific readings which the AI might not have access to, and citing of all sources (which has always been a requirement that the AI might trip up on), they are also going away from the traditional essay format into others. For example, I am studying literature, a relatively essay-heavy field, and in my past few courses I have been asked to analyze comics (which the AI cannot read), edit other people’s essays and articles (from past courses), create a mock syllabus or lesson plan with justifications for each reading, and create annotated bibliographies as a stepping stone to an essay. All of these not only require different skills and encourage different types of learning and research but are quite difficult for an AI to do. \nAll in all, while your suggestion is great, the very nature of the AI and the fact that it exists at all is perhaps a sign that the best course of action is to rework the way we think about evaluation. After all, if an evaluation is such that an AI can complete it without the ability to actually think (it works by using observed language patterns), then perhaps the evaluation is not ideal.", ">\n\nI bet teachers and people thought the same thing about calculators when they came out or 1990s internet. AI bots like chat GPT are just a tool.", ">\n\nAll this effectively does is train kids to accomplish goals of a type that do not exist in the real world in a situation they will never realistically encounter. A better goal is adjusting testing criteria to account for this.\nThere might be very specific sets of knowledge for which rote memorization is appropriate, and for those, the air gapped testing may be appropriate. But I believe those are the exception rather than the rule. By and large, teaching kids to effectively utilize the tools that will be available to them is what we should be doing.", ">\n\nImagine learning where the only books are hand written.\nThe printing press took out a huge amount of repetitive labor in the learning process.\nAI/ChatGPT stands a good chance of removing a huge amount knowledge labor which stands between an idea and the end product. Learning to use the AI to best effect the Idea->End Product Chain is more important than worrying about memorizing formulae we will likely never need to remember. \nThe effort to restrict ChatGPT is just education system worrying about their Cheese Being Moved.", ">\n\nThis just doesn't make any sense to me. You're arguing that we shouldn't allow students to use tools they would have at their disposal in a real working environment, and for what? Why wouldn't you want students to use every tool at their disposal? How exactly is handicapping them helping them to understand the coursework?\nA much better approach would be to fundamentally alter how we teach to better prepare them for the workforce. Encouraging collaboration and creative problem solving skills is much more practical and effective.", ">\n\nChatGPT may pass the Bar, but I highly doubt it will replace lawyers or other professionals. \nThe whole point of credentialing is to drive accountability. Anyone can study the law and cite precedent without a law degree. Actually representing a client in a court of law requires oversight and knowledge. ChatGPT isn't perfect - it will make mistakes from time to time. So who is responsible when it makes a mistake? When is a client (who is not familiar with the law) supposed to know that a mistake has been made on their behalf? For this reason, until ChatGPT is literally perfect you're always going to need a credentialed professional to review the output.\nFor the record, I think ChatGPT is wonderful. But it's a tool that people will use, not a full-fledged replacement for professionals. My employer (a Fortune 500 company) has already rejected its use for internal projects. IT has the website blocked.", ">\n\nThe kids that are educated without its use will fall behind in business when faced with kids that are using it to its fullest extent.\nYou've successfully made an argument for people to succeed in a test that is worthless in the real world. Its parameters don't match.", ">\n\nThe best way to educate children is to teach them skills and strategies that will actually serve them in the workplace of the future. \nChatGPT already has reached the point of replacing humans (See Buzzfeed news). If ChatGPT can take the test or do the homework then what value is that education going to be to these students? Especially older students will quickly see rote memorization as a waste of time and so yes they probably will cheat if they have the opportunity. Trying to force these things to be “learned” and prove that knowledge by brute force banning things is going to be a costly uphill battle.", ">\n\nWhat if we modify how essays are written by students, by asking them to include citations (which is something ChatGPT can’t do)?\nWe can’t stop new tools from making old methods obsolete. But we can focus on enhancing critical thinking of students in a stepwise manner. When a new tool is created, think about how you can adapt rather than resist it.", ">\n\nWhy not just train an ai to spot ai written papers?", ">\n\nWhat about gradually putting more emphasis on oral assignments?", ">\n\nEverything you said makes perfect sense...IF the goal was to teach children simply how to write the perfect standard essay. But that is a very limited way of viewing education and what its real goal is. The real goal of education is to teach children how to think. To come up with the right questions, not just the right answers. In a world where a \"good enough\" essay on literally anything can be conjured as if by magic by a machine, what's the actual value of that exercise now? For a very long time teachers have used the essay as a way to evaluate how a person thinks. Now that a machine can write it for you, we need new ways to evaluate how students think. That's the real task we are facing. Fuck the essay, just like we ditched the slide rule for calculators and later computers, etc. Tools change but the real game remains the same: Think for yourself!", ">\n\nI'd say the best way would be to accept the reality of changing technology and reevaluating the approach we have towards education as a whole.\nGranted, I'd say that's only one half of the picture: reassessing how we conceive if jobs and labour in the face of increasing automation goes along with that, and I think neither really works without the other.\nBottom line is that human labour is more and more obsolete as time goes on, so human jobs will be less and less in demand (I'd argue moving away from a capitalistic system is the right call, but even if you don't, automation is still an incentive).\nSince a large part of the incentive of our current education system is \"prepare you for a job\" I think the whole thing is going to fall short in light of these kinds of systems developing.\nTheres lots of people now who pursue knowledge as a project of passion, rather than a means to an end, and I think moving to a system that supports and encourages that kind of ambition is the way to go.", ">\n\nI disagree. We should learn to use the tools we have efficiently. Otherwise you are not learning for your career but for some professors ego", ">\n\nThat’s not “education in the era of ChatGPT.” That’s education in the era before ChatGPT while we figure out what the world with ChatGPT will look like so we have some idea of what to do with it.\nThat’s also not “educating,” that’s just “assessment.” Assessment is simply a measuring system for education. As long as you think of the acquisition of knowledge and skill as requiring knowledge regurgitation and skill performance in isolation and divorced from context/individualized, then you’re going to end up at necessitating a kind of geofenced, Luddite assessment model. The training itself predicates the assessment method. How we assess is defined by how we teach, and vice versa.\nThe best assessment method to gauge understanding is, and always has been, conversation.\nAll we need to do is pair assessment with regular conversation between qualified teacher and student to determine if personal comprehension is present. Not an interview, not an interrogation — conversation. Problem solving performance contexts are also great revealer of internalized knowledge and skill.\nChatGPT is a relative nonissue if your approach to assessment is at all human.\nIt’s only a problem when you’re trying to mechanize and dehumanized education. “Rigorous” does not mean “mechanical.” We are going to have to trust the professional, knowledge- and skill-assessing judgements of humans who already know and can do.\nEducation reverts to having more emphasis on apprenticeship and mentorship models, where the relationship itself is part of the learning process. \n(The “accountability!” cranks are gonna love that…)", ">\n\nI have a strong suspicion that discussions like this, while very interesting, will be obsolete long before any changes can actually be implemented in schools. In fact, I'm pretty sure schools will be gone entirely in the near future.\nAs of right now, you can be taught almost any subject by an exceptionally well-spoken, fast and infinitely patient teacher called GPT to a university level, if not higher. Try it right now - go ask GPT to explain the political situation that allowed Alexander the Great to conquer Persia, or ask it to explain the raytracing algorithm. If there's a part you don't understand, ask it to clarify. You'll be amazed how accessible it makes advanced topics.\nNow, how long before we have VR software with a realistic-looking AI teacher, with an AI-generated voice, who can do the same thing, but respond to students' voices and use body language and visual demonstrations? Five years?\nHow long after that before this tech is cheap, and of such high quality that sending your kids to school will be a worse education?\nNow in, say, 20 years, we could have an AI system that takes a DNA sample, analyses a students genotype to understand what subjects they will be naturally good at, what education approaches will be most successful, and continuously improves its model of the student's behavior by observing them. It crafts a decades-long education journey tailored to the individual, and accompanies them the entire way.\nTeachers, as far as they've existed so far, don't have a chance.", ">\n\nAre you trying to test someone or teach them?\nIf the latter, why do you care about cheating? This reminds me of the ol' teachers who used to restrict calculators because \"you won't always have a calculator with you.\"", ">\n\nYou forget that for 99% of homework students could just copy each other's work. Having the answers out in the world accessible is not a new problem. You just make homework a small part of the grades and you make sure students understand it's important to actually do it or they won't do well on the tests.", ">\n\nThere are so many people that can’t do the basic math examples you mentioned somewhere and they went to school at a time when there were no calculators.\nOn the other hand I was allowed to use calculators in school pretty much the moment I left elementary school and I am really quite good at math even without assistance.\nTool usage is one of humanities key features and trying to work against it instead of finding ways to incorporate new technology into school and life seems backwards.", ">\n\nIronically the teacher will have to use an AI to decipher the \"hand written\" assignments.", ">\n\nYou can't force people to learn.", ">\n\nWhat about teaching how to think rather than how to memorize? Just a thought 💭", ">\n\nThey need to get rid of homework, and have students do their work while they're at school. It's awful, they just pile it on, even if a class only has a little homework that day, there's like 6 or 7 classes so it's a nightmare for students. Seems like the only way to prevent cheating is have them do work in class, so I hope for the students sake, they do that.", ">\n\nI’ll throw my idea into the ring, though we’re still a few years off from this technology:\nWe should have students interact with AI tutors that can prompt them questions and point out details. Then they can collaborate on assignments, and the AI tutor can give feedback and suggest snippets. The AI can evaluate their work and their engagement with the material.", ">\n\nOne of Transformers main applications is in search. Ie you get a set of embeddings you can compare the pairwise distances between embedding and get a list of scores that tell you which embeddings are most similar to the input. \nEssentially tools like google are made to reduce the search space for a given query collect likely links and then rerank the most likely results. \nChatgpt basically does this in a more direct way of searching through a space of potential responses. Basically trained on a task to predict next token given the previous tokens or fill in a mask\nTransformers permeate everything students use from the recommendation algorithms on TikTok Facebook, YouTube to search systems in google. \nIn my opinion students should absolutely not be taught to fear these tools tho I do agree they be tested in constrained environments to challenge them. Current systems should not be used to learn unless you have a clear understanding and are willing to check every word and check your reasoning. Future systems will be much better though so this problem isn’t going anywhere. \nIf anything there should be a push to make these ideas more interpretable to a younger audience and give them the tools to navigate an increasingly complex market of ideas. They should be aware of the limitations and how when they use a piece of software their actions and the actions of those around them are influencing what they see next. \nIt should be used and taught with rigor. \nIt’s programming 2.0", ">\n\nDude no; \nChatGPT is the computer. \nDo you want to be the education system that banned the computer and then wondered why all the other education systems output modern tech workers, while your education system kept outputting chimney sweeps and car factory workers?", ">\n\nHW only exists to make students practice, and generally is worth less than 20% of the grade in a class. If a student chooses to use chat GPT to bypass it then that’s the student’s loss.\nUltimately exams are what schools use to evaluate a students knowledge and I don’t think that’s going to change anytime soon", ">\n\nThere are already programs that check if something was written by an AI or not. Also no student I know actually uses chatGPT for major assignments because chatGPT doesn’t know every text to ever be published so it doesn’t understand the context, and most of the time will just bullshit an answer that’s incorrect.\nEveryone I know that uses chatGPT for school do so for either for assignments so small and simple that it doesn’t make sense to quarantine, or they use it as a more advanced google that can answer questions more accurately than a search engine could, essentially just saving time.\n(most) students are using chatGPT largely as a productivity and time management tool rather than to cheat.", ">\n\nThis is like saying “in the age of calculators, the only way to ensure kids learn maths is to ban calculators in school”. If looked at correctly, chatgpt is an effect multiplier, learning just has to be rejigged to have kids learn to do things that they can’t simply ask chatgpt to do for them.", ">\n\nLess course work and more exams is the future in a world with chatGPT.", ">\n\nChatGPT will be a big no issue soon. I work in a research field and this was something we worried about last year. As of now there are multiple tools and even more being developed that catch the use of ChatGPT. There has been research published that list ChatGPT as a co-author, but for most research, and use by students, it will simply be forbidden and will easily be caught as well. The program does well but it has a particular style that can be caught. Again it will be a non-issue soon.", ">\n\nThis is like forbidding people to use a calculator because it can give you the result instant. A better way is to teach them how to use the calculator, because its here now and won't go away. Same with GPT. Children can learn way better/faster with ChatGPD if used correctly. Imaging having a private teacher for free which helps you learning every time of the day.", ">\n\nLet me ask you this. If ChatGPT could complete a students whole assignment, what would that student have learned from doing that assignment on their own that won’t simply be replaced with ChatGPT by a employer in the future?\nEven if ChatGPT doesn’t replace workers for a decade, why teach students skills that will inevitably be replaced and leave said students jobless in a decade?\nChatGPT won’t only be used in the workforce either. Linus Tech Tips has a video showing how ChatGPT can help people learn new skills and do troubleshooting on their own. If I remember correctly, he manages to completely build a pc by only strictly following what ChatGPT tells him to. It even managed to suggest the best parts for that computers specific use case. It was nowhere near perfect, but in the future it will get there.\nSince ChatGPT is such a useful tool in the workforce and at home, I think it’s crucial we teach students how to use it instead of banning them from it. Maybe students should be given a problem and tasked to use ChatGPT to find the solution or have students attempt to learn a new topic with ChatGPT. I’m not a teacher, I just thought of those examples of the top of my head. I’m sure qualified teachers could think of better assignments than me.\nI could see ChatGPT helping a mechanic diagnose an issue so the mechanic could spend more time fixing the problem rather than diagnosing and I can think of a few examples in other jobs as well where ChatGPT will help a worker be more efficient and save more time.\nI think, if anything, we’re setting students up for failure by not teaching them about these tools that will take over the workforce and help in everyday life.", ">\n\nYou’ll still have to pass a test. Relax.", ">\n\nIt “fairs” extremely well? Maybe some additional time spent observing ChatGPT could actually benefit some", ">\n\nThere’s just no way you can use ChatGPT to do all of your work for you and be successful at any moderately high level of academic pursuit. Not without learning the material yourself, and if you’ve done that, I don’t think it matters so much whether you used chatGPT and for what along the way.\nFrankly if you start our using chatGPT early in school, you won’t even be able to ask the right questions in the right way and include the necessary refinements to do more complex and demanding assignments down the road. \nAlso, tests are still a thing aren’t they? ChatGPT doesn’t help you perform in person in a monitored environment - not in a way that would allow you to skip learning the material. I don’t really get this aspect of your cmv. As long as tests don’t allow access to ChatGPT, anyone who didn’t learn the material is going to be exposed..", ">\n\nThere are already programs that detect ChatGPT writing.", ">\n\nThe children who want to cheat will always find a way to do so. It doesn’t matter how much you do to restrict it, it’ll just make them find new means of doing so. \nSource: I did GCSE’s in the UK, AP in the US. Trust, kids will cheat even in sterile environments. Especially if it’s a huge room and there are few moderators. A lot of us are scared of repercussions but those who aren’t won’t let anything stand in there way—region and proctoring be damned.", ">\n\nI require them to complete an outline first. Outline must be submitted to me before I take the essay. Google doc lets you see that they write it and when each sentence was written. It’s helped.", ">\n\nCHATGPT is a tool, and in some applications (not all), it can help students do their homework. Consider the calculator. Do students not need to learn formulas and critical thinking just because they can punch numbers into calculators?\nNo, math is still a skill that is valuable if for no other reason then because it trains your brain to solve problems.\nOne of the things that surprises me is that ChatGPT can use words and explain things to students even when a teacher is not available or when there isn’t one. we should consider this an educational opportunity rather than a disadvantage.\nThere are so many amazing things we humans can do when we simply have tools to help us. ChatGPT is no different.", ">\n\nYou can’t force people to live in the past. Chat GPT is here to stay. Education now needs to focus on teaching people how to use AI, and how to develop a skill that can’t be replaced by AI.", ">\n\nHow about getting students engaged in what they’re learning and excited to learn. Find what they’re good at and double down on it. Don’t make school a fucking quarantine bubble. Socialize, allow them to teach and learn from each other. Replace the potential for cheating with collaboration assignments in person. “Children will cheat if given the opportunity” is such horse shit. If somebody doesn’t know or wasn’t taught something well then yea they’re gonna look to get it right so they can obtain approval. How about teaching them so they won’t cheat??", ">\n\nThats not it. I don’t have an answer for you, but thats not it.", ">\n\nHow about just have the kids do a presentation on \"their\" report with Q&A at the end. They'll have no choice but to know the info.... which is the point.", ">\n\nWell, making an AI that detects if something was made by an AI shouldnt be hard", ">\n\nI wonder if anyone has tried training a machine to look at assignments and give a confidence interval of the assignment being either human or machine in origin.", ">\n\nYeah we call that stuff examns...", ">\n\nThe problem with your suggested approach is that it just reinforces the current failures of the education system. It doesn't actually teach us the skills that you will be able to use in the field. \n\nYou can look up formulas for physics and you can double check online for any coding questions. Chat gpt is a tool and I think forbidding students from using it will just be a disservice to them and everyone in the future. It's not going to go away any time soon so how about instead of teaching children to cheat more effectively, we teach them how to use chat gpt to its full potential? It can speed up so many tasks to such a degree that students will be able to recieve more advanced education in the time that was saved by using chat gpt", ">\n\nI mean, there are plenty of good reasons already said, but wouldn't it just be easy to cheat. You get home, ask Chat.gpt for a result, print it out. Bring it with you to the school quarantine, copy it into the computer. (Unless you would like a full strip search of the students upon entering, which is wrong in so many ways)", ">\n\nI could use this in my program all I wanted and pass courses with perfect scores, and at the end of my degree I’d have a licensure exam that I’d fail cause I didn’t learn anything.", ">\n\nGreat idea! While let's just ignore the real world and keep our heads in the sand. Let's also get rid of computers and ink pens and go back to stone and chisel!", ">\n\nInstead of asking students to write ...ask them to spot the mistakes and correct the essays.\nThat requires way more knowledge and mastership.", ">\n\nI feel like this is a modern day equivalent to saying that now that the internet is available at the family computer, students must complete their work entirely under supervision.\nAI is here and more that is better is coming and people need to learn how to integrate with it rather than fight it. It's going to take some jobs. Just like the cotton gin and steam drill took work from people who then immediately transitioned to other work that the machine couldn't do and to running to machine itself. People will need to run ChatGPT. Feed it, verify its output, clean it up and submit the report based on CGPT4.0's write up. Individuals need to know the material, sure, but we can't really keep students off the internet and trying to do so just wastes resources and makes teachers pull their hair out.", ">\n\nI think the problem lies deeper. Humans and especially children want to learn and understand. One of the most common words a 5 y/o uses is \"why\". \"Why do airplanes fly? Why is the sun bright? Why can't I have candy? Why isn't the house collapsing? It is bigger than my sandcastle that fell over.\" And the education system should be ashamed of itself that it kills this curiosity and motivation of the children. I don't want to go too deep into possible solutions. Just one anecdote from myself:\nWe had to produce an educational video. For that we got 20 hours time. We worked around 30, met at my apartment and filmed after a day off homeschooling. Nobody thought of cheating with chatgpt because we have the script our character. On the other hand: I should colour a heart now and I don't want to, so I don't do it.\nEveryone has their video and colouring schematics and we should encourage the prior to the latter, making the demand for cheating less important \nAlso we sent around our homeworks all the time. The concept of homework isn't great at all", ">\n\nHomeschool. Problem solved.", ">\n\nSorry, u/Own-Listen1552 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards." ]
> When I was young, calculators weren't allowed. Later, we were allowed to use them, but only on some tests. Personally, I thought that was stupid. It's like training a carpenter, but not allowing power tools. AI is here to stay. Teach them how to use that useful tool to maximum effect, instead of teaching a work method which will likely be obsolete within five years.	[ "/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^\| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.", ">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?", ">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.", ">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?", ">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.", ">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?", ">\n\nYou mean a grade?", ">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication", ">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.", ">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)", ">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.", ">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.", ">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.", ">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.", ">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?", ">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.", ">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.", ">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.", ">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.", ">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.", ">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.", ">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.", ">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.", ">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.", ">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.", ">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.", ">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.", ">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.", ">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use", ">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.", ">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.", ">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.", ">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.", ">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.", ">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.", ">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.", ">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).", ">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.", ">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.", ">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.", ">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.", ">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.", ">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.", ">\n\n\nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \n\nWhy? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it. \n\nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \n\nWhy? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? \nLet's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project. \n\nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.\n\nTotally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator.", ">\n\nFor the most part, knowledge workers perform a given amount of work in a given amount of hours, and the number of them hired by a company is TotalHoursNeeded/NumHoursPerEmployee. E.g. if you have 100 manyears of work to get done in a typical year, you employ 100 people.\nChat GPT isn't going to \"replace\" people wholesale, because as you say someone still needs to supervise it. But it looks to be on track to increase the productivity of programmers (can write a first draft of code and finds many of the bugs instantly). \nSame for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones. \nSo now the TotalNeeded is decreased by some percentage, let's say 10% to start. Now you only need 90 human programmers to do that same work. With 25% efficiency gain, you need 75. With 50%, 50. Etc. \nOr take translation jobs. Today, an editor spends roughly 3 minutes per word editing machine translated text, and 1 minute per word editing human-translated text. As long as editors are more expensive per hour than first translation people, it still makes sense much of the time to hire translators, because the software isn't free. \nBut the graph of machine translation \"efficiency\" is trending towards taking the same amount of time to edit as a human translator. As soon as that's hit, there's literally no reason to hire human translators, only editors. \nAnd if the editing time goes down to 30 seconds/word because of further AI assistance to the editor, you only need half as many of those.", ">\n\nThere is currently two better solutions being worked on - one of which is already being used to some degree. \nThe first is ChatGPT developers themselves making moves to make AI written works to be identified by \"watermark\" or similar. I don't thi k this one has taken effect at all yet. \nAnother is by a separate dev team that allows teachers to use software to determine the amount of an essay, for example, that is written by AI what the likelihood of any one sentence or paragraph to have been written by AI. This allows the teachers to use discretion when determining if the student used the AI in a way that they find acceptable or not. This way instead kf running from the scary AI educators can actually utilize tyhe AI with students to help them develop their writing and other communications.", ">\n\nWhat about kids with transportation issues? When I was in school I knew kids that drove almost an hour each way to get there. I certainly couldn’t have asked my parents to drop everything to take me all the way to school so I could do my homework if I forgot. Bus schedules? Do you think schools want to waste more money by burning more gas for extra routes? I understand where you’re coming from, but for a fair amount of children—especially in poorer, more rural areas—that getting to school and back is such a delicate balancing act that such a thing would just punish them.", ">\n\nI've seen a few key things from academics testing out ChatGPT (I have not signed up myself):\n\nIt tends to produce confident, convincing nonsense. It doesn't actually understand what it's writing about, and I hear it shows.\nIt makes up citations. Real authors in the field, real journals... but made-up titles. Things like that, since, again, it doesn't actually understand citations.\n\nThis suggests that, for assignments requiring the demonstration of genuine, in-depth understanding, and not merely the ability to summarize facts, ChatGPT will fail.\nA similar example that you bring up in the comments is programming cheat sheets into calculators - but for well-designed engineering exams (including the licensure exams, at least in the US), cheat sheets are fine and often either allowed or provided. A well-designed exam tests the ability to apply principles, not knowledge of equations, so a cheat sheet is harmless, or even allows the exam to work better (since people aren't distracted with memorizing equations).", ">\n\nThere are three criticisms that I have of this approach. \n\n\nShould we not teach to the environment that we live in? Yes, education often imposes arbitrary constraints like time tests but for research and reports why not let people use and work around all resources? If you can work around chat gpt to work efficiently, then do it. You learn what it can and can’t do and how to use it effectively as a tool. \n\n\nCan chatGPT on it’s own actually write a good essay? From what I have seen it can pull together a few sources. It can generally write fluff based on other things that it has seen. But it struggles to write analysis. It can’t interrogate a source or make value judgements. It could be useful for doing some filler or providing ideas but if to do an actual report, I think it would be insufficient. \n\n\nAn assignment that can be done using chatgpt is probably boring. Here I am writing an essay for no reason other than I find it interesting to discuss this topic. Perhaps, we arent giving students interesting enough assignments or we are overloading them to the point that they don’t have the time to engage? If chatGPT turns out to be an issue maybe it’s more of an indictment of the structures and norms of education.", ">\n\n\n\nhomework in the form of essays, take home tests, coding assignments, would be completed on school grounds. \n\n\nCongratulations, you've invented the \"cram school\".\nI'd recommend reading through your post again and actually thinking about the things you've said. Because essentially, you're merely advocating for the wholesale elimination of homework and for education outside of that to remain totally unchanged. It's almost literally, \"Make the school day 30% longer\".\nMy solution to the \"problem\" of students potentially using ChatGPT to cheat on homework: I don't think you need a hilariously convoluted system of homework \"boiler rooms\" redolent of national security apparatus, that requires schools to adopt ruinously expensive and disruptive technological and administrative changes.\nIt would be sufficient if we institute a system whereby teachers are encouraged to, let's say... \"test\" their students, whether by regular written exams or by talking to them in what I'll call \"classes\", to ensure they understand the material they've been assigned to learn.\nThis method ensures that students cannot use AI homework bots to coast through classes (since they'll literally be found out the very next class), and has the added benefit of not adding three hours to every teacher's day.", ">\n\nWhat about pen and ink?", ">\n\narguably I can just copy a ChatGPT output by hand. So I think that is a first level measure, but not a complete solution.", ">\n\nIt's a better solution than prison just because the curriculum can't keep up with technology.\nWhen calculators arrived on everyone's phone and everyone's pocket did you advocate for the same solution? Unlikely, so why only now with this system?", ">\n\nWell I did and I was. When I was studying engineering in the 80s we routinely could not arrive at exams with a calculator. Even then calculators were programmable enough to allow students to write cheat sheets in calculator memory.\nIt forced us to memorize equations, principals of engineering, and independent thinking. I’m a better engineer because I did.", ">\n\nSo you're what, almost 60? And you think what's best for children is to be like you? Don't you think you may be a bit out of touch?\nAlso, your view was about K12 students, not engineering students.", ">\n\nNo. As I replied, leaning on tools as a crutch all your life will limit your ability and function as a human. For example, you could argue that basic math isn’t necessary. As matter of fact that was an argument years ago with the advent of calculators.\nHowever, humans should be able to exist and functions without a digital crutch. You should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator. You should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google. There are basic elements of duration necessary since we are all still wet grey matter.", ">\n\n\nYou should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator\n\nBut why?\n\nYou should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google\n\nAgain, why?\nWhere do you get your \"should\" from?\nI have basically all human knowledge in my hand, every equation or conversion I'll ever need day to day, even every language I'll likely ever encounter. Why shouldn't I leave my brain free to think about what it wants and to use my incredible resource as and when it's needed?\nDo you envision some Saw-like situation where you're locked to a wall and need to solve maths equations at pain of death?", ">\n\nThe less you use your brain the less likely your body is to maintain it. Our body functions through a use or lose it principle. Just look people who lose movement function/muscle just by being bedridden for a long time. Our brain is not different.\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.", ">\n\nIs wasting resources on process you can deletage outside not using your brain? You free up that space to put to what you decide is important.\n\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.\n\nThe weakest man with a gun can take out the strongest bodybuilder.", ">\n\nAnd if you decide Tik tok and Netflix are important? How do you think that will affect the cognitive ability of kids?\nI didn't mention strength nor physical strength. And even then the strongest man with a gun will probably take out the weakest man with a gun.(An actual fair comparison)", ">\n\nCouldn't chatgpt (or somesuch AI) be asked \"Hey - did you write this?\" and nip this sort of thing in the bud?", ">\n\nNo, Chat GPT doesn't remember everything it's said, the potential things it could say are huge and even if someone wrote something that Chat GPT might say, it could be a coincidence.", ">\n\nWell, strike that idea then.\nStill though - there must be some way to use AI to deal with this. \"set a thief to catch a thief\" and all that.", ">\n\nChat GPT (and most generative AIs) use GANs to generate content. \nIn laymen's terms (and extremely simplified as it's above my level of understanding) a GAN is 2 AI systems competing against each other, a creator AI that creates content and a checker AI that decides if the content was genuine or made by the other AI. \nSo any automated way to tell if it's AI generated can be built into the checker AI in future versions and the creator AI will learn to avoid whichever features the checker AI is spotting.", ">\n\nChatGPT is just another mechanism for reducing the need for labor, and it's not going away. \nChildren will need to be educated in both how to make effective use of it (for as long as it's not sufficient to completely eliminate mental labor), and also in the ethics of not using it. Always forcing them to write in airgapped places isn't going to do that, it just makes them resent it. \nAlso: essay writing on a scale needed to really learn long-form writing is not very amenable to doing in an airgapped classroom, because honestly we're not using dead-tree sources of information anymore already, so doing their research pretty much has to include doing it on line. \nBut really: laborious manual long-form essay writing is going to go the way of penmanship and looking things up in a library as an unneeded skill very quickly. We need children to adjust to that reality of the modern world rather than pretending it will go away. \nPeople are still needed (for now) to do the important part of writing essays without doing the laborious bit that ChatGPT automates anyway: deciding what to write, and editing it into a convincing and well-written form. \nForcing kids to spend a lot of time learning how to write the basic bulk part of essays is a lot like teaching them how to make buggy-whips in shop class: a pointless exercise. \nIt would be better to give them all prewritten ChatGPT essays and have them learn the limitations and capabilities.", ">\n\nIs ChatGPT really that much more effective than just grabbing things off Wikipedia? I was asking it things about elections and it was just Wikipedia from two years ago", ">\n\nThe answer is NEVER to limit technology. It’s to teach the new generation how to use that technology to achieve the same goal.\nIt’s pointless to ban computers and teach the memorization of dates in history class. It’s much more productive to teach online research skills so that if an individual needs to know the date of a particular moment in history, they can reliably Google it.\nChatGPT is the same. It renders writing essays as pointless, and it necessitates the teachers to adapt to new teaching styles, such as teaching the skills on how best to manipulate ChatGPT to return the information you need.", ">\n\nI was banned from using programming calculators when I studied engineering in the 80s during exams. It forced the students to all be on the same level playing field and forced us to actually know the equations, their applications, and the processes of whatever engineering course I was taking.\nIt made us better engineers.", ">\n\nHow does handicapping you make you a better engineer? If I put you and an engineer trained with technology in the same room together, who do you think would accomplish the task faster?", ">\n\nThe handicapped engineer, easily. The point of forcing students to actually learn the material is so that they understand how to reason about the underlying processes when they need to troubleshoot something going wrong, and understand the tradeoffs between approaches and how to select the best one for the task. \nOnce you understand things deeply you don't actually need training in doing things quickly because it's immediately intuitive how to apply a technological process to save time. The guy that leaned heavily on technology is basically fucked if he has to use a technique or software that he didn't specifically train on since he doesn't have a good foundation to abstract from. It would be more appropriate to call this person a technician.", ">\n\nThe purpose of calculators is to do the menial part of the work, not to solve whole processes. The engineer that learned with calculators likely knows how to select the right process to solve a problem, but uses the calculator to do the math faster and with fewer errors.", ">\n\nAt the college level, we’re not talking about tools to add and multiply. We’re talking about tools like Wolfram Alpha that do entire symbolic manipulations for you. If I took a calculus class and on all the assignments used Wolfram Alpha to find derivatives, do you think I would have learned anything?\nThat is what ChatGPT is doing for essays", ">\n\nThere are things called pencil and paper.", ">\n\nAs I said, this is the first line defense. However as I already commented to another user. I can simply hand copy ChatGPT output. Essentially not doing my own independent research, writing, coding, and studying.", ">\n\nWhy don't you consider that research? \nThe first source was the best. It's incredibly efficient research IMO.", ">\n\nThe idea of tool removal has always been flawed. From calculators to chat GPT and beyond. If your test is so flimsy that a simple tool invalidates it then the test is poorly built. Test shouldn't be simple busywork tasks, they should require thinking, problem solving, complex thought. If it's just a game of memorization that can be cheated by answers on a paper, you've built a bad test.\nover memorization (which is what our current school systems teach) is not only unhelpful, but also harmful. We live in an era of wikipedia being a reliable source, of vast access to tools both online and phsycial. We should be teaching kids they should do the work but with the help of those tools, not despite them.\nThe main issue with your argument is that based on what you've said, i can assume you think the current school system is a good one but so many studies have shown that at least here in the US, the school systems are some of the worst in the world. It's this memorize, ignore tools, singular focus mentality that plays such a big role.\nIf we were more creative with education, incorporating tool utilization into the learning process, we'd likely have a major improvement to our educational successes. I could go on about how the education system prefers certain kinds of students over others, and how many students are left behind simply because they don't learn like other kids and are therefore punished, but I won't. All I'll say is that more restrictions on how and what kids learn isn't going to help them learn more or better.\nand in 15 years when chat GPT is a part of daily life in every single company on the planet in some way or another (which I'm beyond certain it will be), kids who were taught how to properly utilize it will have just such a huge advantage in the workforce over those who weren't", ">\n\nRather than attempt to find ways to prevent new technology from interfering with existing pedagogy, shouldn't we review and revise pedagogy as new technology develops? \nIf a chat AI program can write these things, what is the point of having humans repeatedly do the same work? We don't expect people to use an abacus when doing math, or limit their research to what's in the library card catalogue, or require printed paper publications as essay resources; we adapted to the calculator, and to the internet and search engines. So too should we adapt to things like ChatGPT, not by trying to pretend it doesn't exist, but by finding ways to incorporate it into a more holistic approach to learning.\nRather than chain kids to an airgapped room on school grounds outside of school hours to do homework that's of dubious educational value in the first place, we should take this as an opportunity to refocus schooling on in-class engagement and direct instruction. ChatGPT and programs like it are showing us yet another thing we as humans can outsource to our technology, so why struggle to do things in a more difficult and inefficient way?", ">\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\nIn addition, AI is only as good as the data it is fed. You must still be able to do the work on your own to analyze when the AI is giving valid outputs (garbage in, garbage out). This is especially true, when AI runs the risks of being owned or operated by those with a specific agenda. Can you imagine the trouble that would result if people relied on AI to determine who to vote for, but someone was able to pay the operators to have the AI promote them?\nRelying on AI to do our work for us is a distillation of an appeal to authority fallacy on a large scale (if the AI says it, it must be true).", ">\n\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\n\nThis is something I worry about A LOT when it comes to AI. Our collective understanding of the subjects that we usually classify as \"the humanities\" is constantly evolving as we learn more, and especially as a more diverse set of people are allowed to study, research and put forth opinions and arguments.\nImagine if students were outsourcing all their history, psychology, sociology and philosophy homework to a chatbot with a 1950s understanding of those subjects.\nImagine doctors outsourcing psych patient diagnoses to a chatbot with the same understanding.\nOn an arguably less \"serious\" but still critically important moral and political topic, imagine if all/most videogame art was outsourced to an AI engine with a 1990s sensibility for female characters. Same for all kinds of representation and diversity.\nHow about politics and political science in general... ha!\nEtc, etc etc.\nIt is NOT the case that we already have discovered all the true answers to the big questions, and we can merely turn to a \"knowledge calculator\" like ChatGPT to spit out the truth.\nEven if AI can pretty accurately reflect the discourse of the day, as it is currently understood and accepted, our collective knowledge and culture will stagnate if we do not actively participate in developing it, and we will all pay the price for that.", ">\n\nThese are all moralistic arguments that ultimately don’t mean anything.", ">\n\nI would say they are more epistemic arguments, which do matter greatly in the context of education (which is what the op was referring to).", ">\n\nAre any of these things mentioned actually realistic concerns? Someone is going to train an AI bot to generate 90s female art characters with big tits?\nNo. Lol and even if someone did, who cares?", ">\n\nConsidering how many people believe obviously fake stories that have no supporting evidence (and in spite of contrary evidence), yes, I believe they are very real concerns.\nIf an AI says we should use Brawndo in farming because its got what plants crave (electrolytes), we should probably be able to justify it with reasoning beyond \"the AI says so.\"", ">\n\nWho is suggesting we do anything “just because an AI said so”? \nDo you read books and think everything in it is true “because the book says so”?", ">\n\nHow do you determine if what the book/ai said is false?\nYou would typically do it through a process of research and discovery.\nPeoples' ability to do research and discovery will be greatly diminished if we rely on AI to do those things for us (which is what the previous posters were suggesting).\nTherefore, reliance on AI will lead to us losing the ability to discern if the results of what the AI is saying is correct.", ">\n\nWhat? Lol that doesn’t make any sense at all. \nIt is not like if we use AI then all previous knowledge is simply forgotten or lost. It’s all still there.", ">\n\nForcing homework at school makes that \"not homework\", and this approach has never worked. You cant reject change, it never works. Every time there has been a game changing event, people adapted. Those who tried to reject change disappeared. Horse carriages disappeared from roads because something else replaced it. Some people supposedly rejected progress, but they are lying to themselves, they still use modern tech or services at some point.\nAnyway, the change is here, and it made essays irrelevant. Time to find another way to test people skills. \nGive it a little time though. ChatGPT costs a ginormous amount of money to run and will not stay free for long either.", ">\n\nIt's not just ChatGPT, the actual innovation is not the interface but lies in algorithms that can recreate natural language of similar quality with smaller data samples. There are also OpenSource datasets like ThePile, etc. so even if OpenAI moves to a paid model (and they will, quickly. You can already sign up to be first in line for the API), there will be other free providers.", ">\n\nHaving coded AIs, I disagree. ChatGPT is a regular trained AI. The novelty is the scale of the operation, and the fact there is a public API.\nNo one ever spent that much money on resources to run and train an AI publicly. I am pretty sure google has done something similar with user data sets to make their search engine and general ecosystem.\nI wish there was a way to have algorithms working with smaller data sets and produce similar results, but it kind of does not work that way.", ">\n\nThere are already tools to identify ChatGPT generated texts. Such tools will improve as another use of literally the same technology.\nJust as teachers submit essays for identifying plagiarism, teachers will submit essays for identifying AI-generated text. \nFurther, a focus could change from grading students on what they know to grading students' ability to ask meaningful, content-based questions about the subject. After all, knowing facts isn't particularly valuable as a skill. Integrating facts and discovering valuable questions is still something that remains a uniquely human skill. And is where people will continue to add value as AI becomes more advanced.", ">\n\nStudents have always been able to 'cheat' on work done outside the classroom, by copying or somehow getting others to do their work for them, even before the internet. Yes with more advanced modern technology it is easier but this has always been a concern. \nAs regular learning environments like supervised classrooms are already 'quarantined' in the way you descibe you are fundementally just suggesting an increase in learning hours as a supplement to homework. This has been suggested by many for various reasons but it would overall cuase more issues than it fixes. It increases work load on teachers and administrators, stretching already thin educational budgets, and forces increased mental strain on children. It would limit their ability to do other recreational and out of ciriculum activities. This would be disruptive and controlling when the quantity of teaching and learning time that children recive is already considered sufficiant for a good education.", ">\n\nHell the only thing stopping me from using ChatGPT regularly for my work now is that it's always at capacity.", ">\n\nApply tests that are hand written, doesnt matter how a person obtains the knowledge, actually learning the subject is most important thing.", ">\n\nThere is no amount of ChatGPT that could influence a good old oral exam where the teacher evaluates the understanding via a little chat.", ">\n\nSo tired of this view. We shouldn’t be fighting technology. Teach kids to use the resources they have to find answers. It’s such a waste of 12 years of school, teaching kids to memorize facts and follow rules. \nInstead, every test should be open book and reward the best answers. Ask the kids to show their work or explain their thought process so we reward understanding of a topic rather than memorization of steps or text.", ">\n\n20 years ago, there were already homework communities and learn groups. Even from the publishers of school books and with free access to tutors. Ok, they didnt do the final homework for me, but gave me a great starting point.\nBeing the kid who transcribes a wiki page was already stupid back then when others could call you out:\nBut I guess the actual problem is lack of digital literacy with teachers, they're always 5-10 years behind.", ">\n\nIf you are testing skills that can be done by free tools on the internet, then you are testing irrelevant skills.\nThe best way to educate kids is to test for skills they need, not skills they objectively don't.\nI was able to witness a couple of universities adapt to tests during quarantine, and follow reports on how the new methods would be used going forward.\nThe results where thus:\nMass offline testing is incredibly cost efficient (one examiner per ~300 students), but the tests results are a poor indicator of real world performance.\nOne to One testing is incredibly expensive, but can, when done right, test actual understanding and performance.\nBoth will be useful, of course. Mass testing is most useful when used in a way that students aren't incentivized to cheat, such as when framed as practice.", ">\n\nOne of the upsides of needing to prevent this kind of tech from cheating assignments is that teachers should focus on having students be able to do their homework at school. (As a former teacher, we were trying to do this already- no more than 15 min of homework per class). \nI dont think we need to do quite what you say. We just need to limit outside electronics and have in-person classrooms or computer labs with programs designed to be AI-proof. \nI have ALWAYS believed that cell phones/internet watches should be stored in school lockers (at most) and never allowed anywhere else on campus during the school day. If anyone needs to contact the students they contact the desk who relays their message/other need. Many schools already do this.", ">\n\n∆\nI agree with this. It would help.", ">\n\nThank you!", ">\n\nThat is utterly pointless.\nThere is no reason to limit the available tools.\nThis just reminds me of the entire \"you won't have a calculator wherever you go\" argument.\nSchool should instead put a focus on responsibly using available tools.", ">\n\nAnd if students choose to use them irresponsibly, what should schools do?\nAnd can you please define what constitutes responsible use? Because despite knowing about plagiarism, people still copy and paste from the internet. Perfect abstinence is easier than perfect moderation after all.", ">\n\nJust return to hand written essays and have more oral exams.", ">\n\n∆l\nActually of all comments having oral exams compliments my post and I agree with you. Enjoy the delta.", ">\n\nIn a Faraday cage.", ">\n\nIf children can just generate work with ChatGPT, it simply shows that children are not being taught anything valuable. (Once ChatGPT responses can be generated in almost unlimited amounts at very low cost, it necessarily means those responses are of low value)\nInstead shouldn't we be teaching children to provide more valuable outcomes that ChatGPT can't replicate?", ">\n\nBeing able to do on your own what ChatGPT does with access to an immense amount of data and processing power is valuable. The actual writing isn't valuable, obviously, but it would be silly to expect it to be. It's just a side effect of practice, you spend time making things of little or no value to build up the skills you'll need to make something that actually matters. That's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\nI think you'd be hard pressed to teach a class of children to outperform ChatGPT in writing without ever asking them to write something that could also be done via AI. What would that even look like?", ">\n\n\nThat's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\n\nIt is a problem. That is why I hated math class until 2nd year of university.", ">\n\nDid you start discovering novel math results in your second year of university, or was that just the point at which you first encountered problems you found interesting, despite the fact that someone else had already solved them before? Thinking back the class you didn't hate, do you think it should be removed if someone can construct an AI to give all the answers you gave?", ">\n\nThis is only a method for evaluating students, it doesn't do anything to educate them.\nChatgpt is potentially a great tool for education but trying to find complex ways around it for homework is pointless. When testing fact retention is required using school/university computers with no web browsing makes sense. For any other test or situation it's a tool that might be used.", ">\n\nI understand OPs concern. That said, I do not think you can create true quarantine for a multitude of reasons. \nThe biggest one is probably time. I worked through high school and university. Because I lived in the middle of nowhere it was about a 30 min drive to high school and then an hour to uni. Having to stay at these quarantine zones to complete assignments would have been hell on my schedule, car, and wallet. \nYou said it yourself, if someone is going to cheat, they will cheat. If I had to do the work in a quarantine zone, what exactly stops me from doing the actual work on my computer at home, printing it all out, and then just writing that into the computer at the quarantine zone? Unless you want to try having students write an entire essay in their hour long class? There has to be a point where they go home and then this falls apart.", ">\n\nThere are already lots of ways to cheat in homework and mostly our steps to deal with that amount to the honour system, and by university level, automated plagiarism detection (which can be quite easily avoided). The point you \"won't argue\" that people will cheat if given the opportunity is probably the actual crux of what's wrong with your suggestion and the part that needs a big [citation needed]. Concluding that the majority of people are fundamentally dishonest is a big assumption to handwave away. \nIf you want an education, cheating is stupid. Ultimately you might get a paper qualification out of it but you'll have actually learned nothing - you won't hold up long against someone who has done it properly when you actually have to apply the skills. Or if you do, then the assignments weren't that crucial to the learning in the first place.", ">\n\nMany of the things I learned in school were largely irrelevant. I couldn't use a calculator to do long division. After I passed those early elementary school years I never did long division again. I wouldn't even argue learning the long division algo is mandatory. It's nice to have learnt it I guess, but I spent way too many hours on it. I can see learning fundamentals of essay writing, etc, are great, but why can't we just evolve to learn more effective things in life? ChatGPT should be used as a tool, not viewed as a detriment.", ">\n\nIt'd suggest that the best way to educate them is to embrace ChatGBT and teach them to use it well. Your method is a bit like teaching kids to do math without calculators or accounting without excel or financial software. There is some value, but it runs out very quickly and you're at a social and competetive disadvantage for taking some archane principled approach to education that is more of a defense of \"how we used to do it\".\nI'm old enough to remember when using a word processor was sometime forbidden for reasons of fairness - that seems entirely disconnected now from doing good work and it's almost hard to envision the thought process of those who thought everything should be hand written for students. \nIsn't the kid who is amazing at utilizing tools like ChatGBT going to do much better in the world than the one who does not? Your idea of \"proper education\" would easily regress back to needing to do all subjects scrawled in dirt with sticks and grunted in non-standardized language.", ">\n\nOR, chatgpt will be a great boon to the entire education system:\nIncreased accessibility: ChatGPT and other AI-powered systems can provide education to individuals who otherwise would not have access to it, due to geographical, financial, or other barriers.\n\nPersonalized learning: ChatGPT can provide personalized education experiences based on each student's strengths, weaknesses, and learning style.\n\n24/7 availability: ChatGPT can operate 24/7, providing students with access to education at any time, anywhere, which can be especially beneficial for those with demanding schedules or for individuals in remote areas.\n\nScalability: ChatGPT can provide education to a large number of students simultaneously, which could help to address the shortage of teachers and resources in some areas.\n\nCost-effectiveness: ChatGPT can be a more cost-effective option for providing education compared to traditional methods, as it does not require physical classrooms or teachers.\n\nImproved student engagement: ChatGPT can provide interactive, engaging learning experiences that can hold students' attention and foster deeper learning.\n\n--Source: ChatGPT", ">\n\nThere a lots of places where texts and exams are “open book”. The questions have to be written differently, and the point is that you’re not testing someone’s ability to memorize, but rather their ability to understand. This is a more difficult test to write, so in theory AI could force education to improve since everyone would a virtual tutor with them at all times.", ">\n\nI'm a teacher and I've been thinking a lot about this the last couple months. Changes within the education system/curriculum/syllabus/retraining of teachers will take far too long to keep up with the ease of access to, and success of, chatgpt and AI in general. \nThe only solution moving forward both short and long term is to embrace it, there is no stopping it now anyway and if we don't all want to be out of a job in 5 years we need to - \n- demonstrate feasible/moral/ethical use of such tools\n- create more opportunities for collaborative learning/hands-on/problem solving tasks and ones that increase communication skills between peers. \nHow this applies to each individual, specific task will vary and must require a lot of creativity and trial and error, but I think relying too heavily on your department of education to handle this (or most 'boots on the ground' problems) will ultimately only degrade a students experience and ability for learning.", ">\n\nI'm with you on what you're trying to accomplish. I just don't know that it's the \"best\" way. \nFor instance, how is homework performed in school superior to trusting the kids to learn the material, which would then be tested by oral exam? And yes, I do believe that asking a student to verbally explain a topic is a really good way to gauge mastery.", ">\n\nThere is not a hope in hell that we'll go back to hand written stuff. That's not how technology works. As the music companies. There are better ways to show you know a subject, for sure, than the current out of-date ones. That's for sure. Have you ever taken an on-line exam?", ">\n\nI argue to let them use chatGPT as it will be their future. This is similar to my generations \"you'll never walk around with a calculator so learn math.\" The future children will grow into a society where work means utilizing AI tech to help them thrive. If chatGPT helps them write an essay, and it's good, it means they're using resources. I agree, however, that we should supplement this with actual reading and writing.", ">\n\nI would argue that most of time that ChatGPT and similar technologies is going to be an issue is in 8-12 grade and college.\nThis technology is not going away, and it's only going to improve. Personally I would treat it like calculators, audio books and spell check.\nTech kids how to use the technology properly. Sure it's somewhat handy to calculate numbers in your head, but having the ability to do math in your head does not give you much of an advantage in today's world and not being able to doesn't hurt you much. But it's still critical to know formulas and how to peace together algebraic statements and word problems. \nKnowing how to spell properly is less important than knowing proper word usage - most times you're writing something it can be spell-checked in real time. Sure it's \"terrible that today's kids...\" don't know how to spell... but it's not going to affect their career. \nEnter ChatGPT - same thing. Should I spend the time to write a white paper on the changing advertising landscape to alert my boss about the a potential seismic shift in advertising revenue, or should I ask ChatGPT to write it? As a user I have to understand its limits and potential copywrite issues, but even more importantly how to verify that what it writes is correct and targeting the right audience. Is data from before 2020 going to be recent and accurate enough for my thesis? How do I supplement the discussion with real-world data? \nThis is our new reality. We should be learning how to use the tools properly, not trying to figure out to lock it down (which frankly makes as much sense as locking down the use of calculators or spell check).", ">\n\nI think there are already apps in place that are able to detect AI generated text (Read this article).\nAlso, I think a better method would be to simply have a database of ChatGPT (could be encrypted) generated text and make it available to already existing software that is use to detect plagiarism (this is just an exemple amongst many)", ">\n\nFrankly I don’t think high schoolers and below should be given homework or tests at all. One learns magnitudes better through exploration as opposed to mindless repetition. Engage with these kids intellectually, make them free thinking Athenians, not bags of knowledge of which they have no idea how to use.\nDoes it not surprise anyone that we train people for over a decade in intellect yet hardly have any intellectuals?", ">\n\nI would argue that society would be better off spending resources on teaching children how to use this tool effectively. Knowing how to get the right answer is what matters in this world.", ">\n\nThen answer this: Well why learn math at all? Seriously.\nWhy learn he concept of subtraction let alone division? I could and society has argued that with the advent of digital calculators. \nYet we learn it. \nLater we use calculators to take the mundane and already known processes to the next level. We abstract away the mundane. \nAs a EE having worked and am working on products you may be using right now to read this, when I develop new silicon and chips I don’t break out Karnaugh maps and lay down circuit using a T square and stencils of gates. But I sure the hell know what I’m doing and expect the tools to do for me. \nTeaching fundamentals of reading, writing, arithmetic, essays, research are just that fundamental.", ">\n\nI’d argue that the vast majority don’t need anything beyond basic math anyways. \nGo ask the average adult if they know the quadratic equation and what it means and you’d probably be disappointed.", ">\n\nChatGPT is here to stay, you'd better advocate for teaching people how to make the most of it and use it wisely instead of pretending it doesn't exist.\nOne of my favourite teachers always told students to use the best tools there are.", ">\n\nI think it depends completely on the topic. In my field of study, it’s fairly easy to come up with term paper assignments that the bot would be useless for. \nLooking back at the paper I wrote last year, I don’t see how any current bot could have helped, as it isn’t able to read or summarize specific sources (yet?).\nAn example of the type of assignments we get is “Discuss the role of state capacity in x and x conflict in light of (specific research paper)‘s dimensions of state capacity - do your findings confirm the findings of (authors), why or why not?\nThis way of combining literature made it difficult even for me to be on top of it, as there were no sources that had attempted this exact combination - it has to be original. \nAlso, I find it’s the best way to learn, because you have to rely on your own judgement and there are no shortcuts, even asking the professor was unhelpful as he wasn’t too familiar with the details.", ">\n\nThis is not the best way.", ">\n\n\nThese homework rooms would have Internet connected computers for use but access to ChatGPT would be filtered and blocked.\n\nThis wouldn't be feasible, there's far too many roundabout ways to still access ChatGPT. Security measures like domain filtering are just unproductive games of whack-a-mole. \nEdit: removed all the other stuff I wrote, as those points have already been mentioned in previous top-level comments.", ">\n\nHomework shouldn’t be the go-to method of “education” to begin with. Imo Universities should focus on the integral part of education: the lectures. Tools like chatgpt can help student who are actually interested in a subject to learn more easily about it, but whether students actually learn anything or not from a class won’t change regardless of if work is authentic or copied from an AI\nSource: I’m a college student and have had experience in both supervised environments where we had to do work without the use of computers/phones and solely-online environments where many students cheated", ">\n\nWhile this could work, it is not necessarily the best way in terms of accessibility and of learning in general. \nFirst, students with ADHD and certain other conditions may not necessarily be the able to be productive at all times, or at the specific time they have to work on those computers, especially if those computers are not in an environment ideal to that specific person. It would also not be very feasible to give students enough time on these computers to complete the bigger assignments and essays. \nSecond, while ChatGPT is quite advanced, it simply works by looking at language patterns and often gets factual details incorrect. For example, with bigger coding problems, it tries to import modules that do not exist or call on functions that it has not defined. In literature, it cannot analyze texts on much more than a surface level. I will admit it can use secondary sources for textual analysis, however, it is unable to come up with a clear thesis on its own. \nAdditionally, take-home tests can be just as easily cheated on using a normal Google search, and usually test thinking skills rather than understanding and knowledge. \nFinally, essay-writing and other types of assignments are generally not ideal for learning as they are only one type of skill, and university professors are recognizing this. Not only do they not work for all learning styles, but they are only used so commonly because of tradition. University professors are structuring assignments around ways that are innovative enough that ChatGPT is unable to work on them. Along with requiring specific readings which the AI might not have access to, and citing of all sources (which has always been a requirement that the AI might trip up on), they are also going away from the traditional essay format into others. For example, I am studying literature, a relatively essay-heavy field, and in my past few courses I have been asked to analyze comics (which the AI cannot read), edit other people’s essays and articles (from past courses), create a mock syllabus or lesson plan with justifications for each reading, and create annotated bibliographies as a stepping stone to an essay. All of these not only require different skills and encourage different types of learning and research but are quite difficult for an AI to do. \nAll in all, while your suggestion is great, the very nature of the AI and the fact that it exists at all is perhaps a sign that the best course of action is to rework the way we think about evaluation. After all, if an evaluation is such that an AI can complete it without the ability to actually think (it works by using observed language patterns), then perhaps the evaluation is not ideal.", ">\n\nI bet teachers and people thought the same thing about calculators when they came out or 1990s internet. AI bots like chat GPT are just a tool.", ">\n\nAll this effectively does is train kids to accomplish goals of a type that do not exist in the real world in a situation they will never realistically encounter. A better goal is adjusting testing criteria to account for this.\nThere might be very specific sets of knowledge for which rote memorization is appropriate, and for those, the air gapped testing may be appropriate. But I believe those are the exception rather than the rule. By and large, teaching kids to effectively utilize the tools that will be available to them is what we should be doing.", ">\n\nImagine learning where the only books are hand written.\nThe printing press took out a huge amount of repetitive labor in the learning process.\nAI/ChatGPT stands a good chance of removing a huge amount knowledge labor which stands between an idea and the end product. Learning to use the AI to best effect the Idea->End Product Chain is more important than worrying about memorizing formulae we will likely never need to remember. \nThe effort to restrict ChatGPT is just education system worrying about their Cheese Being Moved.", ">\n\nThis just doesn't make any sense to me. You're arguing that we shouldn't allow students to use tools they would have at their disposal in a real working environment, and for what? Why wouldn't you want students to use every tool at their disposal? How exactly is handicapping them helping them to understand the coursework?\nA much better approach would be to fundamentally alter how we teach to better prepare them for the workforce. Encouraging collaboration and creative problem solving skills is much more practical and effective.", ">\n\nChatGPT may pass the Bar, but I highly doubt it will replace lawyers or other professionals. \nThe whole point of credentialing is to drive accountability. Anyone can study the law and cite precedent without a law degree. Actually representing a client in a court of law requires oversight and knowledge. ChatGPT isn't perfect - it will make mistakes from time to time. So who is responsible when it makes a mistake? When is a client (who is not familiar with the law) supposed to know that a mistake has been made on their behalf? For this reason, until ChatGPT is literally perfect you're always going to need a credentialed professional to review the output.\nFor the record, I think ChatGPT is wonderful. But it's a tool that people will use, not a full-fledged replacement for professionals. My employer (a Fortune 500 company) has already rejected its use for internal projects. IT has the website blocked.", ">\n\nThe kids that are educated without its use will fall behind in business when faced with kids that are using it to its fullest extent.\nYou've successfully made an argument for people to succeed in a test that is worthless in the real world. Its parameters don't match.", ">\n\nThe best way to educate children is to teach them skills and strategies that will actually serve them in the workplace of the future. \nChatGPT already has reached the point of replacing humans (See Buzzfeed news). If ChatGPT can take the test or do the homework then what value is that education going to be to these students? Especially older students will quickly see rote memorization as a waste of time and so yes they probably will cheat if they have the opportunity. Trying to force these things to be “learned” and prove that knowledge by brute force banning things is going to be a costly uphill battle.", ">\n\nWhat if we modify how essays are written by students, by asking them to include citations (which is something ChatGPT can’t do)?\nWe can’t stop new tools from making old methods obsolete. But we can focus on enhancing critical thinking of students in a stepwise manner. When a new tool is created, think about how you can adapt rather than resist it.", ">\n\nWhy not just train an ai to spot ai written papers?", ">\n\nWhat about gradually putting more emphasis on oral assignments?", ">\n\nEverything you said makes perfect sense...IF the goal was to teach children simply how to write the perfect standard essay. But that is a very limited way of viewing education and what its real goal is. The real goal of education is to teach children how to think. To come up with the right questions, not just the right answers. In a world where a \"good enough\" essay on literally anything can be conjured as if by magic by a machine, what's the actual value of that exercise now? For a very long time teachers have used the essay as a way to evaluate how a person thinks. Now that a machine can write it for you, we need new ways to evaluate how students think. That's the real task we are facing. Fuck the essay, just like we ditched the slide rule for calculators and later computers, etc. Tools change but the real game remains the same: Think for yourself!", ">\n\nI'd say the best way would be to accept the reality of changing technology and reevaluating the approach we have towards education as a whole.\nGranted, I'd say that's only one half of the picture: reassessing how we conceive if jobs and labour in the face of increasing automation goes along with that, and I think neither really works without the other.\nBottom line is that human labour is more and more obsolete as time goes on, so human jobs will be less and less in demand (I'd argue moving away from a capitalistic system is the right call, but even if you don't, automation is still an incentive).\nSince a large part of the incentive of our current education system is \"prepare you for a job\" I think the whole thing is going to fall short in light of these kinds of systems developing.\nTheres lots of people now who pursue knowledge as a project of passion, rather than a means to an end, and I think moving to a system that supports and encourages that kind of ambition is the way to go.", ">\n\nI disagree. We should learn to use the tools we have efficiently. Otherwise you are not learning for your career but for some professors ego", ">\n\nThat’s not “education in the era of ChatGPT.” That’s education in the era before ChatGPT while we figure out what the world with ChatGPT will look like so we have some idea of what to do with it.\nThat’s also not “educating,” that’s just “assessment.” Assessment is simply a measuring system for education. As long as you think of the acquisition of knowledge and skill as requiring knowledge regurgitation and skill performance in isolation and divorced from context/individualized, then you’re going to end up at necessitating a kind of geofenced, Luddite assessment model. The training itself predicates the assessment method. How we assess is defined by how we teach, and vice versa.\nThe best assessment method to gauge understanding is, and always has been, conversation.\nAll we need to do is pair assessment with regular conversation between qualified teacher and student to determine if personal comprehension is present. Not an interview, not an interrogation — conversation. Problem solving performance contexts are also great revealer of internalized knowledge and skill.\nChatGPT is a relative nonissue if your approach to assessment is at all human.\nIt’s only a problem when you’re trying to mechanize and dehumanized education. “Rigorous” does not mean “mechanical.” We are going to have to trust the professional, knowledge- and skill-assessing judgements of humans who already know and can do.\nEducation reverts to having more emphasis on apprenticeship and mentorship models, where the relationship itself is part of the learning process. \n(The “accountability!” cranks are gonna love that…)", ">\n\nI have a strong suspicion that discussions like this, while very interesting, will be obsolete long before any changes can actually be implemented in schools. In fact, I'm pretty sure schools will be gone entirely in the near future.\nAs of right now, you can be taught almost any subject by an exceptionally well-spoken, fast and infinitely patient teacher called GPT to a university level, if not higher. Try it right now - go ask GPT to explain the political situation that allowed Alexander the Great to conquer Persia, or ask it to explain the raytracing algorithm. If there's a part you don't understand, ask it to clarify. You'll be amazed how accessible it makes advanced topics.\nNow, how long before we have VR software with a realistic-looking AI teacher, with an AI-generated voice, who can do the same thing, but respond to students' voices and use body language and visual demonstrations? Five years?\nHow long after that before this tech is cheap, and of such high quality that sending your kids to school will be a worse education?\nNow in, say, 20 years, we could have an AI system that takes a DNA sample, analyses a students genotype to understand what subjects they will be naturally good at, what education approaches will be most successful, and continuously improves its model of the student's behavior by observing them. It crafts a decades-long education journey tailored to the individual, and accompanies them the entire way.\nTeachers, as far as they've existed so far, don't have a chance.", ">\n\nAre you trying to test someone or teach them?\nIf the latter, why do you care about cheating? This reminds me of the ol' teachers who used to restrict calculators because \"you won't always have a calculator with you.\"", ">\n\nYou forget that for 99% of homework students could just copy each other's work. Having the answers out in the world accessible is not a new problem. You just make homework a small part of the grades and you make sure students understand it's important to actually do it or they won't do well on the tests.", ">\n\nThere are so many people that can’t do the basic math examples you mentioned somewhere and they went to school at a time when there were no calculators.\nOn the other hand I was allowed to use calculators in school pretty much the moment I left elementary school and I am really quite good at math even without assistance.\nTool usage is one of humanities key features and trying to work against it instead of finding ways to incorporate new technology into school and life seems backwards.", ">\n\nIronically the teacher will have to use an AI to decipher the \"hand written\" assignments.", ">\n\nYou can't force people to learn.", ">\n\nWhat about teaching how to think rather than how to memorize? Just a thought 💭", ">\n\nThey need to get rid of homework, and have students do their work while they're at school. It's awful, they just pile it on, even if a class only has a little homework that day, there's like 6 or 7 classes so it's a nightmare for students. Seems like the only way to prevent cheating is have them do work in class, so I hope for the students sake, they do that.", ">\n\nI’ll throw my idea into the ring, though we’re still a few years off from this technology:\nWe should have students interact with AI tutors that can prompt them questions and point out details. Then they can collaborate on assignments, and the AI tutor can give feedback and suggest snippets. The AI can evaluate their work and their engagement with the material.", ">\n\nOne of Transformers main applications is in search. Ie you get a set of embeddings you can compare the pairwise distances between embedding and get a list of scores that tell you which embeddings are most similar to the input. \nEssentially tools like google are made to reduce the search space for a given query collect likely links and then rerank the most likely results. \nChatgpt basically does this in a more direct way of searching through a space of potential responses. Basically trained on a task to predict next token given the previous tokens or fill in a mask\nTransformers permeate everything students use from the recommendation algorithms on TikTok Facebook, YouTube to search systems in google. \nIn my opinion students should absolutely not be taught to fear these tools tho I do agree they be tested in constrained environments to challenge them. Current systems should not be used to learn unless you have a clear understanding and are willing to check every word and check your reasoning. Future systems will be much better though so this problem isn’t going anywhere. \nIf anything there should be a push to make these ideas more interpretable to a younger audience and give them the tools to navigate an increasingly complex market of ideas. They should be aware of the limitations and how when they use a piece of software their actions and the actions of those around them are influencing what they see next. \nIt should be used and taught with rigor. \nIt’s programming 2.0", ">\n\nDude no; \nChatGPT is the computer. \nDo you want to be the education system that banned the computer and then wondered why all the other education systems output modern tech workers, while your education system kept outputting chimney sweeps and car factory workers?", ">\n\nHW only exists to make students practice, and generally is worth less than 20% of the grade in a class. If a student chooses to use chat GPT to bypass it then that’s the student’s loss.\nUltimately exams are what schools use to evaluate a students knowledge and I don’t think that’s going to change anytime soon", ">\n\nThere are already programs that check if something was written by an AI or not. Also no student I know actually uses chatGPT for major assignments because chatGPT doesn’t know every text to ever be published so it doesn’t understand the context, and most of the time will just bullshit an answer that’s incorrect.\nEveryone I know that uses chatGPT for school do so for either for assignments so small and simple that it doesn’t make sense to quarantine, or they use it as a more advanced google that can answer questions more accurately than a search engine could, essentially just saving time.\n(most) students are using chatGPT largely as a productivity and time management tool rather than to cheat.", ">\n\nThis is like saying “in the age of calculators, the only way to ensure kids learn maths is to ban calculators in school”. If looked at correctly, chatgpt is an effect multiplier, learning just has to be rejigged to have kids learn to do things that they can’t simply ask chatgpt to do for them.", ">\n\nLess course work and more exams is the future in a world with chatGPT.", ">\n\nChatGPT will be a big no issue soon. I work in a research field and this was something we worried about last year. As of now there are multiple tools and even more being developed that catch the use of ChatGPT. There has been research published that list ChatGPT as a co-author, but for most research, and use by students, it will simply be forbidden and will easily be caught as well. The program does well but it has a particular style that can be caught. Again it will be a non-issue soon.", ">\n\nThis is like forbidding people to use a calculator because it can give you the result instant. A better way is to teach them how to use the calculator, because its here now and won't go away. Same with GPT. Children can learn way better/faster with ChatGPD if used correctly. Imaging having a private teacher for free which helps you learning every time of the day.", ">\n\nLet me ask you this. If ChatGPT could complete a students whole assignment, what would that student have learned from doing that assignment on their own that won’t simply be replaced with ChatGPT by a employer in the future?\nEven if ChatGPT doesn’t replace workers for a decade, why teach students skills that will inevitably be replaced and leave said students jobless in a decade?\nChatGPT won’t only be used in the workforce either. Linus Tech Tips has a video showing how ChatGPT can help people learn new skills and do troubleshooting on their own. If I remember correctly, he manages to completely build a pc by only strictly following what ChatGPT tells him to. It even managed to suggest the best parts for that computers specific use case. It was nowhere near perfect, but in the future it will get there.\nSince ChatGPT is such a useful tool in the workforce and at home, I think it’s crucial we teach students how to use it instead of banning them from it. Maybe students should be given a problem and tasked to use ChatGPT to find the solution or have students attempt to learn a new topic with ChatGPT. I’m not a teacher, I just thought of those examples of the top of my head. I’m sure qualified teachers could think of better assignments than me.\nI could see ChatGPT helping a mechanic diagnose an issue so the mechanic could spend more time fixing the problem rather than diagnosing and I can think of a few examples in other jobs as well where ChatGPT will help a worker be more efficient and save more time.\nI think, if anything, we’re setting students up for failure by not teaching them about these tools that will take over the workforce and help in everyday life.", ">\n\nYou’ll still have to pass a test. Relax.", ">\n\nIt “fairs” extremely well? Maybe some additional time spent observing ChatGPT could actually benefit some", ">\n\nThere’s just no way you can use ChatGPT to do all of your work for you and be successful at any moderately high level of academic pursuit. Not without learning the material yourself, and if you’ve done that, I don’t think it matters so much whether you used chatGPT and for what along the way.\nFrankly if you start our using chatGPT early in school, you won’t even be able to ask the right questions in the right way and include the necessary refinements to do more complex and demanding assignments down the road. \nAlso, tests are still a thing aren’t they? ChatGPT doesn’t help you perform in person in a monitored environment - not in a way that would allow you to skip learning the material. I don’t really get this aspect of your cmv. As long as tests don’t allow access to ChatGPT, anyone who didn’t learn the material is going to be exposed..", ">\n\nThere are already programs that detect ChatGPT writing.", ">\n\nThe children who want to cheat will always find a way to do so. It doesn’t matter how much you do to restrict it, it’ll just make them find new means of doing so. \nSource: I did GCSE’s in the UK, AP in the US. Trust, kids will cheat even in sterile environments. Especially if it’s a huge room and there are few moderators. A lot of us are scared of repercussions but those who aren’t won’t let anything stand in there way—region and proctoring be damned.", ">\n\nI require them to complete an outline first. Outline must be submitted to me before I take the essay. Google doc lets you see that they write it and when each sentence was written. It’s helped.", ">\n\nCHATGPT is a tool, and in some applications (not all), it can help students do their homework. Consider the calculator. Do students not need to learn formulas and critical thinking just because they can punch numbers into calculators?\nNo, math is still a skill that is valuable if for no other reason then because it trains your brain to solve problems.\nOne of the things that surprises me is that ChatGPT can use words and explain things to students even when a teacher is not available or when there isn’t one. we should consider this an educational opportunity rather than a disadvantage.\nThere are so many amazing things we humans can do when we simply have tools to help us. ChatGPT is no different.", ">\n\nYou can’t force people to live in the past. Chat GPT is here to stay. Education now needs to focus on teaching people how to use AI, and how to develop a skill that can’t be replaced by AI.", ">\n\nHow about getting students engaged in what they’re learning and excited to learn. Find what they’re good at and double down on it. Don’t make school a fucking quarantine bubble. Socialize, allow them to teach and learn from each other. Replace the potential for cheating with collaboration assignments in person. “Children will cheat if given the opportunity” is such horse shit. If somebody doesn’t know or wasn’t taught something well then yea they’re gonna look to get it right so they can obtain approval. How about teaching them so they won’t cheat??", ">\n\nThats not it. I don’t have an answer for you, but thats not it.", ">\n\nHow about just have the kids do a presentation on \"their\" report with Q&A at the end. They'll have no choice but to know the info.... which is the point.", ">\n\nWell, making an AI that detects if something was made by an AI shouldnt be hard", ">\n\nI wonder if anyone has tried training a machine to look at assignments and give a confidence interval of the assignment being either human or machine in origin.", ">\n\nYeah we call that stuff examns...", ">\n\nThe problem with your suggested approach is that it just reinforces the current failures of the education system. It doesn't actually teach us the skills that you will be able to use in the field. \n\nYou can look up formulas for physics and you can double check online for any coding questions. Chat gpt is a tool and I think forbidding students from using it will just be a disservice to them and everyone in the future. It's not going to go away any time soon so how about instead of teaching children to cheat more effectively, we teach them how to use chat gpt to its full potential? It can speed up so many tasks to such a degree that students will be able to recieve more advanced education in the time that was saved by using chat gpt", ">\n\nI mean, there are plenty of good reasons already said, but wouldn't it just be easy to cheat. You get home, ask Chat.gpt for a result, print it out. Bring it with you to the school quarantine, copy it into the computer. (Unless you would like a full strip search of the students upon entering, which is wrong in so many ways)", ">\n\nI could use this in my program all I wanted and pass courses with perfect scores, and at the end of my degree I’d have a licensure exam that I’d fail cause I didn’t learn anything.", ">\n\nGreat idea! While let's just ignore the real world and keep our heads in the sand. Let's also get rid of computers and ink pens and go back to stone and chisel!", ">\n\nInstead of asking students to write ...ask them to spot the mistakes and correct the essays.\nThat requires way more knowledge and mastership.", ">\n\nI feel like this is a modern day equivalent to saying that now that the internet is available at the family computer, students must complete their work entirely under supervision.\nAI is here and more that is better is coming and people need to learn how to integrate with it rather than fight it. It's going to take some jobs. Just like the cotton gin and steam drill took work from people who then immediately transitioned to other work that the machine couldn't do and to running to machine itself. People will need to run ChatGPT. Feed it, verify its output, clean it up and submit the report based on CGPT4.0's write up. Individuals need to know the material, sure, but we can't really keep students off the internet and trying to do so just wastes resources and makes teachers pull their hair out.", ">\n\nI think the problem lies deeper. Humans and especially children want to learn and understand. One of the most common words a 5 y/o uses is \"why\". \"Why do airplanes fly? Why is the sun bright? Why can't I have candy? Why isn't the house collapsing? It is bigger than my sandcastle that fell over.\" And the education system should be ashamed of itself that it kills this curiosity and motivation of the children. I don't want to go too deep into possible solutions. Just one anecdote from myself:\nWe had to produce an educational video. For that we got 20 hours time. We worked around 30, met at my apartment and filmed after a day off homeschooling. Nobody thought of cheating with chatgpt because we have the script our character. On the other hand: I should colour a heart now and I don't want to, so I don't do it.\nEveryone has their video and colouring schematics and we should encourage the prior to the latter, making the demand for cheating less important \nAlso we sent around our homeworks all the time. The concept of homework isn't great at all", ">\n\nHomeschool. Problem solved.", ">\n\nSorry, u/Own-Listen1552 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nHow is ChatGPT different than what Math teachers had to go through when calculators become a thing?\nAt first, they banned them \"because the students have to learn the material!\" \nStudents rebelled because \"We'll always have a calculator available.\"\nEventually, teachers relented and now allow calculators in the class.\nDo you see the trajectory of ChatGPT going any different?\nAs for ChatGPT improving, if everybody is using it then it won't be able to improve because the only new input will just be reinforcing feedback from its own work.\nAs for children cheating, how is using ChatGPT different than any other sort of plagiarism detection that teachers already have to deal with? Also, the makers of ChatGPT also provide a tool that will tell you if a particular work product was produced by it. Isn't that good enough of a deterrent?\nAir gapping the kids from legitimate research material seems to be a bit extreme to me." ]
> How bout not putting children in a prison for 8 hours, but teach them how to learn and getting them interested and motivated for school. My biggest problem in School was how boring most of the teachers taught the material. Maybe dont let every random highly educated person be a teacher if they cant work with kids. When i had the right teacher he sort of started my hunger for knowledge about the themes he was teaching. Plus kids and teenagers hate doing what theyre told to do so i dont think that is a solution at all.	[ "/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^\| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.", ">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?", ">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.", ">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?", ">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.", ">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?", ">\n\nYou mean a grade?", ">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication", ">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.", ">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)", ">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.", ">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.", ">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.", ">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.", ">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?", ">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.", ">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.", ">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.", ">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.", ">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.", ">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.", ">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.", ">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.", ">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.", ">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.", ">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.", ">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.", ">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.", ">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use", ">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.", ">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.", ">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.", ">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.", ">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.", ">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.", ">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.", ">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).", ">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.", ">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.", ">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.", ">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.", ">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.", ">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.", ">\n\n\nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \n\nWhy? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it. \n\nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \n\nWhy? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? \nLet's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project. \n\nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.\n\nTotally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator.", ">\n\nFor the most part, knowledge workers perform a given amount of work in a given amount of hours, and the number of them hired by a company is TotalHoursNeeded/NumHoursPerEmployee. E.g. if you have 100 manyears of work to get done in a typical year, you employ 100 people.\nChat GPT isn't going to \"replace\" people wholesale, because as you say someone still needs to supervise it. But it looks to be on track to increase the productivity of programmers (can write a first draft of code and finds many of the bugs instantly). \nSame for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones. \nSo now the TotalNeeded is decreased by some percentage, let's say 10% to start. Now you only need 90 human programmers to do that same work. With 25% efficiency gain, you need 75. With 50%, 50. Etc. \nOr take translation jobs. Today, an editor spends roughly 3 minutes per word editing machine translated text, and 1 minute per word editing human-translated text. As long as editors are more expensive per hour than first translation people, it still makes sense much of the time to hire translators, because the software isn't free. \nBut the graph of machine translation \"efficiency\" is trending towards taking the same amount of time to edit as a human translator. As soon as that's hit, there's literally no reason to hire human translators, only editors. \nAnd if the editing time goes down to 30 seconds/word because of further AI assistance to the editor, you only need half as many of those.", ">\n\nThere is currently two better solutions being worked on - one of which is already being used to some degree. \nThe first is ChatGPT developers themselves making moves to make AI written works to be identified by \"watermark\" or similar. I don't thi k this one has taken effect at all yet. \nAnother is by a separate dev team that allows teachers to use software to determine the amount of an essay, for example, that is written by AI what the likelihood of any one sentence or paragraph to have been written by AI. This allows the teachers to use discretion when determining if the student used the AI in a way that they find acceptable or not. This way instead kf running from the scary AI educators can actually utilize tyhe AI with students to help them develop their writing and other communications.", ">\n\nWhat about kids with transportation issues? When I was in school I knew kids that drove almost an hour each way to get there. I certainly couldn’t have asked my parents to drop everything to take me all the way to school so I could do my homework if I forgot. Bus schedules? Do you think schools want to waste more money by burning more gas for extra routes? I understand where you’re coming from, but for a fair amount of children—especially in poorer, more rural areas—that getting to school and back is such a delicate balancing act that such a thing would just punish them.", ">\n\nI've seen a few key things from academics testing out ChatGPT (I have not signed up myself):\n\nIt tends to produce confident, convincing nonsense. It doesn't actually understand what it's writing about, and I hear it shows.\nIt makes up citations. Real authors in the field, real journals... but made-up titles. Things like that, since, again, it doesn't actually understand citations.\n\nThis suggests that, for assignments requiring the demonstration of genuine, in-depth understanding, and not merely the ability to summarize facts, ChatGPT will fail.\nA similar example that you bring up in the comments is programming cheat sheets into calculators - but for well-designed engineering exams (including the licensure exams, at least in the US), cheat sheets are fine and often either allowed or provided. A well-designed exam tests the ability to apply principles, not knowledge of equations, so a cheat sheet is harmless, or even allows the exam to work better (since people aren't distracted with memorizing equations).", ">\n\nThere are three criticisms that I have of this approach. \n\n\nShould we not teach to the environment that we live in? Yes, education often imposes arbitrary constraints like time tests but for research and reports why not let people use and work around all resources? If you can work around chat gpt to work efficiently, then do it. You learn what it can and can’t do and how to use it effectively as a tool. \n\n\nCan chatGPT on it’s own actually write a good essay? From what I have seen it can pull together a few sources. It can generally write fluff based on other things that it has seen. But it struggles to write analysis. It can’t interrogate a source or make value judgements. It could be useful for doing some filler or providing ideas but if to do an actual report, I think it would be insufficient. \n\n\nAn assignment that can be done using chatgpt is probably boring. Here I am writing an essay for no reason other than I find it interesting to discuss this topic. Perhaps, we arent giving students interesting enough assignments or we are overloading them to the point that they don’t have the time to engage? If chatGPT turns out to be an issue maybe it’s more of an indictment of the structures and norms of education.", ">\n\n\n\nhomework in the form of essays, take home tests, coding assignments, would be completed on school grounds. \n\n\nCongratulations, you've invented the \"cram school\".\nI'd recommend reading through your post again and actually thinking about the things you've said. Because essentially, you're merely advocating for the wholesale elimination of homework and for education outside of that to remain totally unchanged. It's almost literally, \"Make the school day 30% longer\".\nMy solution to the \"problem\" of students potentially using ChatGPT to cheat on homework: I don't think you need a hilariously convoluted system of homework \"boiler rooms\" redolent of national security apparatus, that requires schools to adopt ruinously expensive and disruptive technological and administrative changes.\nIt would be sufficient if we institute a system whereby teachers are encouraged to, let's say... \"test\" their students, whether by regular written exams or by talking to them in what I'll call \"classes\", to ensure they understand the material they've been assigned to learn.\nThis method ensures that students cannot use AI homework bots to coast through classes (since they'll literally be found out the very next class), and has the added benefit of not adding three hours to every teacher's day.", ">\n\nWhat about pen and ink?", ">\n\narguably I can just copy a ChatGPT output by hand. So I think that is a first level measure, but not a complete solution.", ">\n\nIt's a better solution than prison just because the curriculum can't keep up with technology.\nWhen calculators arrived on everyone's phone and everyone's pocket did you advocate for the same solution? Unlikely, so why only now with this system?", ">\n\nWell I did and I was. When I was studying engineering in the 80s we routinely could not arrive at exams with a calculator. Even then calculators were programmable enough to allow students to write cheat sheets in calculator memory.\nIt forced us to memorize equations, principals of engineering, and independent thinking. I’m a better engineer because I did.", ">\n\nSo you're what, almost 60? And you think what's best for children is to be like you? Don't you think you may be a bit out of touch?\nAlso, your view was about K12 students, not engineering students.", ">\n\nNo. As I replied, leaning on tools as a crutch all your life will limit your ability and function as a human. For example, you could argue that basic math isn’t necessary. As matter of fact that was an argument years ago with the advent of calculators.\nHowever, humans should be able to exist and functions without a digital crutch. You should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator. You should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google. There are basic elements of duration necessary since we are all still wet grey matter.", ">\n\n\nYou should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator\n\nBut why?\n\nYou should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google\n\nAgain, why?\nWhere do you get your \"should\" from?\nI have basically all human knowledge in my hand, every equation or conversion I'll ever need day to day, even every language I'll likely ever encounter. Why shouldn't I leave my brain free to think about what it wants and to use my incredible resource as and when it's needed?\nDo you envision some Saw-like situation where you're locked to a wall and need to solve maths equations at pain of death?", ">\n\nThe less you use your brain the less likely your body is to maintain it. Our body functions through a use or lose it principle. Just look people who lose movement function/muscle just by being bedridden for a long time. Our brain is not different.\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.", ">\n\nIs wasting resources on process you can deletage outside not using your brain? You free up that space to put to what you decide is important.\n\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.\n\nThe weakest man with a gun can take out the strongest bodybuilder.", ">\n\nAnd if you decide Tik tok and Netflix are important? How do you think that will affect the cognitive ability of kids?\nI didn't mention strength nor physical strength. And even then the strongest man with a gun will probably take out the weakest man with a gun.(An actual fair comparison)", ">\n\nCouldn't chatgpt (or somesuch AI) be asked \"Hey - did you write this?\" and nip this sort of thing in the bud?", ">\n\nNo, Chat GPT doesn't remember everything it's said, the potential things it could say are huge and even if someone wrote something that Chat GPT might say, it could be a coincidence.", ">\n\nWell, strike that idea then.\nStill though - there must be some way to use AI to deal with this. \"set a thief to catch a thief\" and all that.", ">\n\nChat GPT (and most generative AIs) use GANs to generate content. \nIn laymen's terms (and extremely simplified as it's above my level of understanding) a GAN is 2 AI systems competing against each other, a creator AI that creates content and a checker AI that decides if the content was genuine or made by the other AI. \nSo any automated way to tell if it's AI generated can be built into the checker AI in future versions and the creator AI will learn to avoid whichever features the checker AI is spotting.", ">\n\nChatGPT is just another mechanism for reducing the need for labor, and it's not going away. \nChildren will need to be educated in both how to make effective use of it (for as long as it's not sufficient to completely eliminate mental labor), and also in the ethics of not using it. Always forcing them to write in airgapped places isn't going to do that, it just makes them resent it. \nAlso: essay writing on a scale needed to really learn long-form writing is not very amenable to doing in an airgapped classroom, because honestly we're not using dead-tree sources of information anymore already, so doing their research pretty much has to include doing it on line. \nBut really: laborious manual long-form essay writing is going to go the way of penmanship and looking things up in a library as an unneeded skill very quickly. We need children to adjust to that reality of the modern world rather than pretending it will go away. \nPeople are still needed (for now) to do the important part of writing essays without doing the laborious bit that ChatGPT automates anyway: deciding what to write, and editing it into a convincing and well-written form. \nForcing kids to spend a lot of time learning how to write the basic bulk part of essays is a lot like teaching them how to make buggy-whips in shop class: a pointless exercise. \nIt would be better to give them all prewritten ChatGPT essays and have them learn the limitations and capabilities.", ">\n\nIs ChatGPT really that much more effective than just grabbing things off Wikipedia? I was asking it things about elections and it was just Wikipedia from two years ago", ">\n\nThe answer is NEVER to limit technology. It’s to teach the new generation how to use that technology to achieve the same goal.\nIt’s pointless to ban computers and teach the memorization of dates in history class. It’s much more productive to teach online research skills so that if an individual needs to know the date of a particular moment in history, they can reliably Google it.\nChatGPT is the same. It renders writing essays as pointless, and it necessitates the teachers to adapt to new teaching styles, such as teaching the skills on how best to manipulate ChatGPT to return the information you need.", ">\n\nI was banned from using programming calculators when I studied engineering in the 80s during exams. It forced the students to all be on the same level playing field and forced us to actually know the equations, their applications, and the processes of whatever engineering course I was taking.\nIt made us better engineers.", ">\n\nHow does handicapping you make you a better engineer? If I put you and an engineer trained with technology in the same room together, who do you think would accomplish the task faster?", ">\n\nThe handicapped engineer, easily. The point of forcing students to actually learn the material is so that they understand how to reason about the underlying processes when they need to troubleshoot something going wrong, and understand the tradeoffs between approaches and how to select the best one for the task. \nOnce you understand things deeply you don't actually need training in doing things quickly because it's immediately intuitive how to apply a technological process to save time. The guy that leaned heavily on technology is basically fucked if he has to use a technique or software that he didn't specifically train on since he doesn't have a good foundation to abstract from. It would be more appropriate to call this person a technician.", ">\n\nThe purpose of calculators is to do the menial part of the work, not to solve whole processes. The engineer that learned with calculators likely knows how to select the right process to solve a problem, but uses the calculator to do the math faster and with fewer errors.", ">\n\nAt the college level, we’re not talking about tools to add and multiply. We’re talking about tools like Wolfram Alpha that do entire symbolic manipulations for you. If I took a calculus class and on all the assignments used Wolfram Alpha to find derivatives, do you think I would have learned anything?\nThat is what ChatGPT is doing for essays", ">\n\nThere are things called pencil and paper.", ">\n\nAs I said, this is the first line defense. However as I already commented to another user. I can simply hand copy ChatGPT output. Essentially not doing my own independent research, writing, coding, and studying.", ">\n\nWhy don't you consider that research? \nThe first source was the best. It's incredibly efficient research IMO.", ">\n\nThe idea of tool removal has always been flawed. From calculators to chat GPT and beyond. If your test is so flimsy that a simple tool invalidates it then the test is poorly built. Test shouldn't be simple busywork tasks, they should require thinking, problem solving, complex thought. If it's just a game of memorization that can be cheated by answers on a paper, you've built a bad test.\nover memorization (which is what our current school systems teach) is not only unhelpful, but also harmful. We live in an era of wikipedia being a reliable source, of vast access to tools both online and phsycial. We should be teaching kids they should do the work but with the help of those tools, not despite them.\nThe main issue with your argument is that based on what you've said, i can assume you think the current school system is a good one but so many studies have shown that at least here in the US, the school systems are some of the worst in the world. It's this memorize, ignore tools, singular focus mentality that plays such a big role.\nIf we were more creative with education, incorporating tool utilization into the learning process, we'd likely have a major improvement to our educational successes. I could go on about how the education system prefers certain kinds of students over others, and how many students are left behind simply because they don't learn like other kids and are therefore punished, but I won't. All I'll say is that more restrictions on how and what kids learn isn't going to help them learn more or better.\nand in 15 years when chat GPT is a part of daily life in every single company on the planet in some way or another (which I'm beyond certain it will be), kids who were taught how to properly utilize it will have just such a huge advantage in the workforce over those who weren't", ">\n\nRather than attempt to find ways to prevent new technology from interfering with existing pedagogy, shouldn't we review and revise pedagogy as new technology develops? \nIf a chat AI program can write these things, what is the point of having humans repeatedly do the same work? We don't expect people to use an abacus when doing math, or limit their research to what's in the library card catalogue, or require printed paper publications as essay resources; we adapted to the calculator, and to the internet and search engines. So too should we adapt to things like ChatGPT, not by trying to pretend it doesn't exist, but by finding ways to incorporate it into a more holistic approach to learning.\nRather than chain kids to an airgapped room on school grounds outside of school hours to do homework that's of dubious educational value in the first place, we should take this as an opportunity to refocus schooling on in-class engagement and direct instruction. ChatGPT and programs like it are showing us yet another thing we as humans can outsource to our technology, so why struggle to do things in a more difficult and inefficient way?", ">\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\nIn addition, AI is only as good as the data it is fed. You must still be able to do the work on your own to analyze when the AI is giving valid outputs (garbage in, garbage out). This is especially true, when AI runs the risks of being owned or operated by those with a specific agenda. Can you imagine the trouble that would result if people relied on AI to determine who to vote for, but someone was able to pay the operators to have the AI promote them?\nRelying on AI to do our work for us is a distillation of an appeal to authority fallacy on a large scale (if the AI says it, it must be true).", ">\n\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\n\nThis is something I worry about A LOT when it comes to AI. Our collective understanding of the subjects that we usually classify as \"the humanities\" is constantly evolving as we learn more, and especially as a more diverse set of people are allowed to study, research and put forth opinions and arguments.\nImagine if students were outsourcing all their history, psychology, sociology and philosophy homework to a chatbot with a 1950s understanding of those subjects.\nImagine doctors outsourcing psych patient diagnoses to a chatbot with the same understanding.\nOn an arguably less \"serious\" but still critically important moral and political topic, imagine if all/most videogame art was outsourced to an AI engine with a 1990s sensibility for female characters. Same for all kinds of representation and diversity.\nHow about politics and political science in general... ha!\nEtc, etc etc.\nIt is NOT the case that we already have discovered all the true answers to the big questions, and we can merely turn to a \"knowledge calculator\" like ChatGPT to spit out the truth.\nEven if AI can pretty accurately reflect the discourse of the day, as it is currently understood and accepted, our collective knowledge and culture will stagnate if we do not actively participate in developing it, and we will all pay the price for that.", ">\n\nThese are all moralistic arguments that ultimately don’t mean anything.", ">\n\nI would say they are more epistemic arguments, which do matter greatly in the context of education (which is what the op was referring to).", ">\n\nAre any of these things mentioned actually realistic concerns? Someone is going to train an AI bot to generate 90s female art characters with big tits?\nNo. Lol and even if someone did, who cares?", ">\n\nConsidering how many people believe obviously fake stories that have no supporting evidence (and in spite of contrary evidence), yes, I believe they are very real concerns.\nIf an AI says we should use Brawndo in farming because its got what plants crave (electrolytes), we should probably be able to justify it with reasoning beyond \"the AI says so.\"", ">\n\nWho is suggesting we do anything “just because an AI said so”? \nDo you read books and think everything in it is true “because the book says so”?", ">\n\nHow do you determine if what the book/ai said is false?\nYou would typically do it through a process of research and discovery.\nPeoples' ability to do research and discovery will be greatly diminished if we rely on AI to do those things for us (which is what the previous posters were suggesting).\nTherefore, reliance on AI will lead to us losing the ability to discern if the results of what the AI is saying is correct.", ">\n\nWhat? Lol that doesn’t make any sense at all. \nIt is not like if we use AI then all previous knowledge is simply forgotten or lost. It’s all still there.", ">\n\nForcing homework at school makes that \"not homework\", and this approach has never worked. You cant reject change, it never works. Every time there has been a game changing event, people adapted. Those who tried to reject change disappeared. Horse carriages disappeared from roads because something else replaced it. Some people supposedly rejected progress, but they are lying to themselves, they still use modern tech or services at some point.\nAnyway, the change is here, and it made essays irrelevant. Time to find another way to test people skills. \nGive it a little time though. ChatGPT costs a ginormous amount of money to run and will not stay free for long either.", ">\n\nIt's not just ChatGPT, the actual innovation is not the interface but lies in algorithms that can recreate natural language of similar quality with smaller data samples. There are also OpenSource datasets like ThePile, etc. so even if OpenAI moves to a paid model (and they will, quickly. You can already sign up to be first in line for the API), there will be other free providers.", ">\n\nHaving coded AIs, I disagree. ChatGPT is a regular trained AI. The novelty is the scale of the operation, and the fact there is a public API.\nNo one ever spent that much money on resources to run and train an AI publicly. I am pretty sure google has done something similar with user data sets to make their search engine and general ecosystem.\nI wish there was a way to have algorithms working with smaller data sets and produce similar results, but it kind of does not work that way.", ">\n\nThere are already tools to identify ChatGPT generated texts. Such tools will improve as another use of literally the same technology.\nJust as teachers submit essays for identifying plagiarism, teachers will submit essays for identifying AI-generated text. \nFurther, a focus could change from grading students on what they know to grading students' ability to ask meaningful, content-based questions about the subject. After all, knowing facts isn't particularly valuable as a skill. Integrating facts and discovering valuable questions is still something that remains a uniquely human skill. And is where people will continue to add value as AI becomes more advanced.", ">\n\nStudents have always been able to 'cheat' on work done outside the classroom, by copying or somehow getting others to do their work for them, even before the internet. Yes with more advanced modern technology it is easier but this has always been a concern. \nAs regular learning environments like supervised classrooms are already 'quarantined' in the way you descibe you are fundementally just suggesting an increase in learning hours as a supplement to homework. This has been suggested by many for various reasons but it would overall cuase more issues than it fixes. It increases work load on teachers and administrators, stretching already thin educational budgets, and forces increased mental strain on children. It would limit their ability to do other recreational and out of ciriculum activities. This would be disruptive and controlling when the quantity of teaching and learning time that children recive is already considered sufficiant for a good education.", ">\n\nHell the only thing stopping me from using ChatGPT regularly for my work now is that it's always at capacity.", ">\n\nApply tests that are hand written, doesnt matter how a person obtains the knowledge, actually learning the subject is most important thing.", ">\n\nThere is no amount of ChatGPT that could influence a good old oral exam where the teacher evaluates the understanding via a little chat.", ">\n\nSo tired of this view. We shouldn’t be fighting technology. Teach kids to use the resources they have to find answers. It’s such a waste of 12 years of school, teaching kids to memorize facts and follow rules. \nInstead, every test should be open book and reward the best answers. Ask the kids to show their work or explain their thought process so we reward understanding of a topic rather than memorization of steps or text.", ">\n\n20 years ago, there were already homework communities and learn groups. Even from the publishers of school books and with free access to tutors. Ok, they didnt do the final homework for me, but gave me a great starting point.\nBeing the kid who transcribes a wiki page was already stupid back then when others could call you out:\nBut I guess the actual problem is lack of digital literacy with teachers, they're always 5-10 years behind.", ">\n\nIf you are testing skills that can be done by free tools on the internet, then you are testing irrelevant skills.\nThe best way to educate kids is to test for skills they need, not skills they objectively don't.\nI was able to witness a couple of universities adapt to tests during quarantine, and follow reports on how the new methods would be used going forward.\nThe results where thus:\nMass offline testing is incredibly cost efficient (one examiner per ~300 students), but the tests results are a poor indicator of real world performance.\nOne to One testing is incredibly expensive, but can, when done right, test actual understanding and performance.\nBoth will be useful, of course. Mass testing is most useful when used in a way that students aren't incentivized to cheat, such as when framed as practice.", ">\n\nOne of the upsides of needing to prevent this kind of tech from cheating assignments is that teachers should focus on having students be able to do their homework at school. (As a former teacher, we were trying to do this already- no more than 15 min of homework per class). \nI dont think we need to do quite what you say. We just need to limit outside electronics and have in-person classrooms or computer labs with programs designed to be AI-proof. \nI have ALWAYS believed that cell phones/internet watches should be stored in school lockers (at most) and never allowed anywhere else on campus during the school day. If anyone needs to contact the students they contact the desk who relays their message/other need. Many schools already do this.", ">\n\n∆\nI agree with this. It would help.", ">\n\nThank you!", ">\n\nThat is utterly pointless.\nThere is no reason to limit the available tools.\nThis just reminds me of the entire \"you won't have a calculator wherever you go\" argument.\nSchool should instead put a focus on responsibly using available tools.", ">\n\nAnd if students choose to use them irresponsibly, what should schools do?\nAnd can you please define what constitutes responsible use? Because despite knowing about plagiarism, people still copy and paste from the internet. Perfect abstinence is easier than perfect moderation after all.", ">\n\nJust return to hand written essays and have more oral exams.", ">\n\n∆l\nActually of all comments having oral exams compliments my post and I agree with you. Enjoy the delta.", ">\n\nIn a Faraday cage.", ">\n\nIf children can just generate work with ChatGPT, it simply shows that children are not being taught anything valuable. (Once ChatGPT responses can be generated in almost unlimited amounts at very low cost, it necessarily means those responses are of low value)\nInstead shouldn't we be teaching children to provide more valuable outcomes that ChatGPT can't replicate?", ">\n\nBeing able to do on your own what ChatGPT does with access to an immense amount of data and processing power is valuable. The actual writing isn't valuable, obviously, but it would be silly to expect it to be. It's just a side effect of practice, you spend time making things of little or no value to build up the skills you'll need to make something that actually matters. That's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\nI think you'd be hard pressed to teach a class of children to outperform ChatGPT in writing without ever asking them to write something that could also be done via AI. What would that even look like?", ">\n\n\nThat's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\n\nIt is a problem. That is why I hated math class until 2nd year of university.", ">\n\nDid you start discovering novel math results in your second year of university, or was that just the point at which you first encountered problems you found interesting, despite the fact that someone else had already solved them before? Thinking back the class you didn't hate, do you think it should be removed if someone can construct an AI to give all the answers you gave?", ">\n\nThis is only a method for evaluating students, it doesn't do anything to educate them.\nChatgpt is potentially a great tool for education but trying to find complex ways around it for homework is pointless. When testing fact retention is required using school/university computers with no web browsing makes sense. For any other test or situation it's a tool that might be used.", ">\n\nI understand OPs concern. That said, I do not think you can create true quarantine for a multitude of reasons. \nThe biggest one is probably time. I worked through high school and university. Because I lived in the middle of nowhere it was about a 30 min drive to high school and then an hour to uni. Having to stay at these quarantine zones to complete assignments would have been hell on my schedule, car, and wallet. \nYou said it yourself, if someone is going to cheat, they will cheat. If I had to do the work in a quarantine zone, what exactly stops me from doing the actual work on my computer at home, printing it all out, and then just writing that into the computer at the quarantine zone? Unless you want to try having students write an entire essay in their hour long class? There has to be a point where they go home and then this falls apart.", ">\n\nThere are already lots of ways to cheat in homework and mostly our steps to deal with that amount to the honour system, and by university level, automated plagiarism detection (which can be quite easily avoided). The point you \"won't argue\" that people will cheat if given the opportunity is probably the actual crux of what's wrong with your suggestion and the part that needs a big [citation needed]. Concluding that the majority of people are fundamentally dishonest is a big assumption to handwave away. \nIf you want an education, cheating is stupid. Ultimately you might get a paper qualification out of it but you'll have actually learned nothing - you won't hold up long against someone who has done it properly when you actually have to apply the skills. Or if you do, then the assignments weren't that crucial to the learning in the first place.", ">\n\nMany of the things I learned in school were largely irrelevant. I couldn't use a calculator to do long division. After I passed those early elementary school years I never did long division again. I wouldn't even argue learning the long division algo is mandatory. It's nice to have learnt it I guess, but I spent way too many hours on it. I can see learning fundamentals of essay writing, etc, are great, but why can't we just evolve to learn more effective things in life? ChatGPT should be used as a tool, not viewed as a detriment.", ">\n\nIt'd suggest that the best way to educate them is to embrace ChatGBT and teach them to use it well. Your method is a bit like teaching kids to do math without calculators or accounting without excel or financial software. There is some value, but it runs out very quickly and you're at a social and competetive disadvantage for taking some archane principled approach to education that is more of a defense of \"how we used to do it\".\nI'm old enough to remember when using a word processor was sometime forbidden for reasons of fairness - that seems entirely disconnected now from doing good work and it's almost hard to envision the thought process of those who thought everything should be hand written for students. \nIsn't the kid who is amazing at utilizing tools like ChatGBT going to do much better in the world than the one who does not? Your idea of \"proper education\" would easily regress back to needing to do all subjects scrawled in dirt with sticks and grunted in non-standardized language.", ">\n\nOR, chatgpt will be a great boon to the entire education system:\nIncreased accessibility: ChatGPT and other AI-powered systems can provide education to individuals who otherwise would not have access to it, due to geographical, financial, or other barriers.\n\nPersonalized learning: ChatGPT can provide personalized education experiences based on each student's strengths, weaknesses, and learning style.\n\n24/7 availability: ChatGPT can operate 24/7, providing students with access to education at any time, anywhere, which can be especially beneficial for those with demanding schedules or for individuals in remote areas.\n\nScalability: ChatGPT can provide education to a large number of students simultaneously, which could help to address the shortage of teachers and resources in some areas.\n\nCost-effectiveness: ChatGPT can be a more cost-effective option for providing education compared to traditional methods, as it does not require physical classrooms or teachers.\n\nImproved student engagement: ChatGPT can provide interactive, engaging learning experiences that can hold students' attention and foster deeper learning.\n\n--Source: ChatGPT", ">\n\nThere a lots of places where texts and exams are “open book”. The questions have to be written differently, and the point is that you’re not testing someone’s ability to memorize, but rather their ability to understand. This is a more difficult test to write, so in theory AI could force education to improve since everyone would a virtual tutor with them at all times.", ">\n\nI'm a teacher and I've been thinking a lot about this the last couple months. Changes within the education system/curriculum/syllabus/retraining of teachers will take far too long to keep up with the ease of access to, and success of, chatgpt and AI in general. \nThe only solution moving forward both short and long term is to embrace it, there is no stopping it now anyway and if we don't all want to be out of a job in 5 years we need to - \n- demonstrate feasible/moral/ethical use of such tools\n- create more opportunities for collaborative learning/hands-on/problem solving tasks and ones that increase communication skills between peers. \nHow this applies to each individual, specific task will vary and must require a lot of creativity and trial and error, but I think relying too heavily on your department of education to handle this (or most 'boots on the ground' problems) will ultimately only degrade a students experience and ability for learning.", ">\n\nI'm with you on what you're trying to accomplish. I just don't know that it's the \"best\" way. \nFor instance, how is homework performed in school superior to trusting the kids to learn the material, which would then be tested by oral exam? And yes, I do believe that asking a student to verbally explain a topic is a really good way to gauge mastery.", ">\n\nThere is not a hope in hell that we'll go back to hand written stuff. That's not how technology works. As the music companies. There are better ways to show you know a subject, for sure, than the current out of-date ones. That's for sure. Have you ever taken an on-line exam?", ">\n\nI argue to let them use chatGPT as it will be their future. This is similar to my generations \"you'll never walk around with a calculator so learn math.\" The future children will grow into a society where work means utilizing AI tech to help them thrive. If chatGPT helps them write an essay, and it's good, it means they're using resources. I agree, however, that we should supplement this with actual reading and writing.", ">\n\nI would argue that most of time that ChatGPT and similar technologies is going to be an issue is in 8-12 grade and college.\nThis technology is not going away, and it's only going to improve. Personally I would treat it like calculators, audio books and spell check.\nTech kids how to use the technology properly. Sure it's somewhat handy to calculate numbers in your head, but having the ability to do math in your head does not give you much of an advantage in today's world and not being able to doesn't hurt you much. But it's still critical to know formulas and how to peace together algebraic statements and word problems. \nKnowing how to spell properly is less important than knowing proper word usage - most times you're writing something it can be spell-checked in real time. Sure it's \"terrible that today's kids...\" don't know how to spell... but it's not going to affect their career. \nEnter ChatGPT - same thing. Should I spend the time to write a white paper on the changing advertising landscape to alert my boss about the a potential seismic shift in advertising revenue, or should I ask ChatGPT to write it? As a user I have to understand its limits and potential copywrite issues, but even more importantly how to verify that what it writes is correct and targeting the right audience. Is data from before 2020 going to be recent and accurate enough for my thesis? How do I supplement the discussion with real-world data? \nThis is our new reality. We should be learning how to use the tools properly, not trying to figure out to lock it down (which frankly makes as much sense as locking down the use of calculators or spell check).", ">\n\nI think there are already apps in place that are able to detect AI generated text (Read this article).\nAlso, I think a better method would be to simply have a database of ChatGPT (could be encrypted) generated text and make it available to already existing software that is use to detect plagiarism (this is just an exemple amongst many)", ">\n\nFrankly I don’t think high schoolers and below should be given homework or tests at all. One learns magnitudes better through exploration as opposed to mindless repetition. Engage with these kids intellectually, make them free thinking Athenians, not bags of knowledge of which they have no idea how to use.\nDoes it not surprise anyone that we train people for over a decade in intellect yet hardly have any intellectuals?", ">\n\nI would argue that society would be better off spending resources on teaching children how to use this tool effectively. Knowing how to get the right answer is what matters in this world.", ">\n\nThen answer this: Well why learn math at all? Seriously.\nWhy learn he concept of subtraction let alone division? I could and society has argued that with the advent of digital calculators. \nYet we learn it. \nLater we use calculators to take the mundane and already known processes to the next level. We abstract away the mundane. \nAs a EE having worked and am working on products you may be using right now to read this, when I develop new silicon and chips I don’t break out Karnaugh maps and lay down circuit using a T square and stencils of gates. But I sure the hell know what I’m doing and expect the tools to do for me. \nTeaching fundamentals of reading, writing, arithmetic, essays, research are just that fundamental.", ">\n\nI’d argue that the vast majority don’t need anything beyond basic math anyways. \nGo ask the average adult if they know the quadratic equation and what it means and you’d probably be disappointed.", ">\n\nChatGPT is here to stay, you'd better advocate for teaching people how to make the most of it and use it wisely instead of pretending it doesn't exist.\nOne of my favourite teachers always told students to use the best tools there are.", ">\n\nI think it depends completely on the topic. In my field of study, it’s fairly easy to come up with term paper assignments that the bot would be useless for. \nLooking back at the paper I wrote last year, I don’t see how any current bot could have helped, as it isn’t able to read or summarize specific sources (yet?).\nAn example of the type of assignments we get is “Discuss the role of state capacity in x and x conflict in light of (specific research paper)‘s dimensions of state capacity - do your findings confirm the findings of (authors), why or why not?\nThis way of combining literature made it difficult even for me to be on top of it, as there were no sources that had attempted this exact combination - it has to be original. \nAlso, I find it’s the best way to learn, because you have to rely on your own judgement and there are no shortcuts, even asking the professor was unhelpful as he wasn’t too familiar with the details.", ">\n\nThis is not the best way.", ">\n\n\nThese homework rooms would have Internet connected computers for use but access to ChatGPT would be filtered and blocked.\n\nThis wouldn't be feasible, there's far too many roundabout ways to still access ChatGPT. Security measures like domain filtering are just unproductive games of whack-a-mole. \nEdit: removed all the other stuff I wrote, as those points have already been mentioned in previous top-level comments.", ">\n\nHomework shouldn’t be the go-to method of “education” to begin with. Imo Universities should focus on the integral part of education: the lectures. Tools like chatgpt can help student who are actually interested in a subject to learn more easily about it, but whether students actually learn anything or not from a class won’t change regardless of if work is authentic or copied from an AI\nSource: I’m a college student and have had experience in both supervised environments where we had to do work without the use of computers/phones and solely-online environments where many students cheated", ">\n\nWhile this could work, it is not necessarily the best way in terms of accessibility and of learning in general. \nFirst, students with ADHD and certain other conditions may not necessarily be the able to be productive at all times, or at the specific time they have to work on those computers, especially if those computers are not in an environment ideal to that specific person. It would also not be very feasible to give students enough time on these computers to complete the bigger assignments and essays. \nSecond, while ChatGPT is quite advanced, it simply works by looking at language patterns and often gets factual details incorrect. For example, with bigger coding problems, it tries to import modules that do not exist or call on functions that it has not defined. In literature, it cannot analyze texts on much more than a surface level. I will admit it can use secondary sources for textual analysis, however, it is unable to come up with a clear thesis on its own. \nAdditionally, take-home tests can be just as easily cheated on using a normal Google search, and usually test thinking skills rather than understanding and knowledge. \nFinally, essay-writing and other types of assignments are generally not ideal for learning as they are only one type of skill, and university professors are recognizing this. Not only do they not work for all learning styles, but they are only used so commonly because of tradition. University professors are structuring assignments around ways that are innovative enough that ChatGPT is unable to work on them. Along with requiring specific readings which the AI might not have access to, and citing of all sources (which has always been a requirement that the AI might trip up on), they are also going away from the traditional essay format into others. For example, I am studying literature, a relatively essay-heavy field, and in my past few courses I have been asked to analyze comics (which the AI cannot read), edit other people’s essays and articles (from past courses), create a mock syllabus or lesson plan with justifications for each reading, and create annotated bibliographies as a stepping stone to an essay. All of these not only require different skills and encourage different types of learning and research but are quite difficult for an AI to do. \nAll in all, while your suggestion is great, the very nature of the AI and the fact that it exists at all is perhaps a sign that the best course of action is to rework the way we think about evaluation. After all, if an evaluation is such that an AI can complete it without the ability to actually think (it works by using observed language patterns), then perhaps the evaluation is not ideal.", ">\n\nI bet teachers and people thought the same thing about calculators when they came out or 1990s internet. AI bots like chat GPT are just a tool.", ">\n\nAll this effectively does is train kids to accomplish goals of a type that do not exist in the real world in a situation they will never realistically encounter. A better goal is adjusting testing criteria to account for this.\nThere might be very specific sets of knowledge for which rote memorization is appropriate, and for those, the air gapped testing may be appropriate. But I believe those are the exception rather than the rule. By and large, teaching kids to effectively utilize the tools that will be available to them is what we should be doing.", ">\n\nImagine learning where the only books are hand written.\nThe printing press took out a huge amount of repetitive labor in the learning process.\nAI/ChatGPT stands a good chance of removing a huge amount knowledge labor which stands between an idea and the end product. Learning to use the AI to best effect the Idea->End Product Chain is more important than worrying about memorizing formulae we will likely never need to remember. \nThe effort to restrict ChatGPT is just education system worrying about their Cheese Being Moved.", ">\n\nThis just doesn't make any sense to me. You're arguing that we shouldn't allow students to use tools they would have at their disposal in a real working environment, and for what? Why wouldn't you want students to use every tool at their disposal? How exactly is handicapping them helping them to understand the coursework?\nA much better approach would be to fundamentally alter how we teach to better prepare them for the workforce. Encouraging collaboration and creative problem solving skills is much more practical and effective.", ">\n\nChatGPT may pass the Bar, but I highly doubt it will replace lawyers or other professionals. \nThe whole point of credentialing is to drive accountability. Anyone can study the law and cite precedent without a law degree. Actually representing a client in a court of law requires oversight and knowledge. ChatGPT isn't perfect - it will make mistakes from time to time. So who is responsible when it makes a mistake? When is a client (who is not familiar with the law) supposed to know that a mistake has been made on their behalf? For this reason, until ChatGPT is literally perfect you're always going to need a credentialed professional to review the output.\nFor the record, I think ChatGPT is wonderful. But it's a tool that people will use, not a full-fledged replacement for professionals. My employer (a Fortune 500 company) has already rejected its use for internal projects. IT has the website blocked.", ">\n\nThe kids that are educated without its use will fall behind in business when faced with kids that are using it to its fullest extent.\nYou've successfully made an argument for people to succeed in a test that is worthless in the real world. Its parameters don't match.", ">\n\nThe best way to educate children is to teach them skills and strategies that will actually serve them in the workplace of the future. \nChatGPT already has reached the point of replacing humans (See Buzzfeed news). If ChatGPT can take the test or do the homework then what value is that education going to be to these students? Especially older students will quickly see rote memorization as a waste of time and so yes they probably will cheat if they have the opportunity. Trying to force these things to be “learned” and prove that knowledge by brute force banning things is going to be a costly uphill battle.", ">\n\nWhat if we modify how essays are written by students, by asking them to include citations (which is something ChatGPT can’t do)?\nWe can’t stop new tools from making old methods obsolete. But we can focus on enhancing critical thinking of students in a stepwise manner. When a new tool is created, think about how you can adapt rather than resist it.", ">\n\nWhy not just train an ai to spot ai written papers?", ">\n\nWhat about gradually putting more emphasis on oral assignments?", ">\n\nEverything you said makes perfect sense...IF the goal was to teach children simply how to write the perfect standard essay. But that is a very limited way of viewing education and what its real goal is. The real goal of education is to teach children how to think. To come up with the right questions, not just the right answers. In a world where a \"good enough\" essay on literally anything can be conjured as if by magic by a machine, what's the actual value of that exercise now? For a very long time teachers have used the essay as a way to evaluate how a person thinks. Now that a machine can write it for you, we need new ways to evaluate how students think. That's the real task we are facing. Fuck the essay, just like we ditched the slide rule for calculators and later computers, etc. Tools change but the real game remains the same: Think for yourself!", ">\n\nI'd say the best way would be to accept the reality of changing technology and reevaluating the approach we have towards education as a whole.\nGranted, I'd say that's only one half of the picture: reassessing how we conceive if jobs and labour in the face of increasing automation goes along with that, and I think neither really works without the other.\nBottom line is that human labour is more and more obsolete as time goes on, so human jobs will be less and less in demand (I'd argue moving away from a capitalistic system is the right call, but even if you don't, automation is still an incentive).\nSince a large part of the incentive of our current education system is \"prepare you for a job\" I think the whole thing is going to fall short in light of these kinds of systems developing.\nTheres lots of people now who pursue knowledge as a project of passion, rather than a means to an end, and I think moving to a system that supports and encourages that kind of ambition is the way to go.", ">\n\nI disagree. We should learn to use the tools we have efficiently. Otherwise you are not learning for your career but for some professors ego", ">\n\nThat’s not “education in the era of ChatGPT.” That’s education in the era before ChatGPT while we figure out what the world with ChatGPT will look like so we have some idea of what to do with it.\nThat’s also not “educating,” that’s just “assessment.” Assessment is simply a measuring system for education. As long as you think of the acquisition of knowledge and skill as requiring knowledge regurgitation and skill performance in isolation and divorced from context/individualized, then you’re going to end up at necessitating a kind of geofenced, Luddite assessment model. The training itself predicates the assessment method. How we assess is defined by how we teach, and vice versa.\nThe best assessment method to gauge understanding is, and always has been, conversation.\nAll we need to do is pair assessment with regular conversation between qualified teacher and student to determine if personal comprehension is present. Not an interview, not an interrogation — conversation. Problem solving performance contexts are also great revealer of internalized knowledge and skill.\nChatGPT is a relative nonissue if your approach to assessment is at all human.\nIt’s only a problem when you’re trying to mechanize and dehumanized education. “Rigorous” does not mean “mechanical.” We are going to have to trust the professional, knowledge- and skill-assessing judgements of humans who already know and can do.\nEducation reverts to having more emphasis on apprenticeship and mentorship models, where the relationship itself is part of the learning process. \n(The “accountability!” cranks are gonna love that…)", ">\n\nI have a strong suspicion that discussions like this, while very interesting, will be obsolete long before any changes can actually be implemented in schools. In fact, I'm pretty sure schools will be gone entirely in the near future.\nAs of right now, you can be taught almost any subject by an exceptionally well-spoken, fast and infinitely patient teacher called GPT to a university level, if not higher. Try it right now - go ask GPT to explain the political situation that allowed Alexander the Great to conquer Persia, or ask it to explain the raytracing algorithm. If there's a part you don't understand, ask it to clarify. You'll be amazed how accessible it makes advanced topics.\nNow, how long before we have VR software with a realistic-looking AI teacher, with an AI-generated voice, who can do the same thing, but respond to students' voices and use body language and visual demonstrations? Five years?\nHow long after that before this tech is cheap, and of such high quality that sending your kids to school will be a worse education?\nNow in, say, 20 years, we could have an AI system that takes a DNA sample, analyses a students genotype to understand what subjects they will be naturally good at, what education approaches will be most successful, and continuously improves its model of the student's behavior by observing them. It crafts a decades-long education journey tailored to the individual, and accompanies them the entire way.\nTeachers, as far as they've existed so far, don't have a chance.", ">\n\nAre you trying to test someone or teach them?\nIf the latter, why do you care about cheating? This reminds me of the ol' teachers who used to restrict calculators because \"you won't always have a calculator with you.\"", ">\n\nYou forget that for 99% of homework students could just copy each other's work. Having the answers out in the world accessible is not a new problem. You just make homework a small part of the grades and you make sure students understand it's important to actually do it or they won't do well on the tests.", ">\n\nThere are so many people that can’t do the basic math examples you mentioned somewhere and they went to school at a time when there were no calculators.\nOn the other hand I was allowed to use calculators in school pretty much the moment I left elementary school and I am really quite good at math even without assistance.\nTool usage is one of humanities key features and trying to work against it instead of finding ways to incorporate new technology into school and life seems backwards.", ">\n\nIronically the teacher will have to use an AI to decipher the \"hand written\" assignments.", ">\n\nYou can't force people to learn.", ">\n\nWhat about teaching how to think rather than how to memorize? Just a thought 💭", ">\n\nThey need to get rid of homework, and have students do their work while they're at school. It's awful, they just pile it on, even if a class only has a little homework that day, there's like 6 or 7 classes so it's a nightmare for students. Seems like the only way to prevent cheating is have them do work in class, so I hope for the students sake, they do that.", ">\n\nI’ll throw my idea into the ring, though we’re still a few years off from this technology:\nWe should have students interact with AI tutors that can prompt them questions and point out details. Then they can collaborate on assignments, and the AI tutor can give feedback and suggest snippets. The AI can evaluate their work and their engagement with the material.", ">\n\nOne of Transformers main applications is in search. Ie you get a set of embeddings you can compare the pairwise distances between embedding and get a list of scores that tell you which embeddings are most similar to the input. \nEssentially tools like google are made to reduce the search space for a given query collect likely links and then rerank the most likely results. \nChatgpt basically does this in a more direct way of searching through a space of potential responses. Basically trained on a task to predict next token given the previous tokens or fill in a mask\nTransformers permeate everything students use from the recommendation algorithms on TikTok Facebook, YouTube to search systems in google. \nIn my opinion students should absolutely not be taught to fear these tools tho I do agree they be tested in constrained environments to challenge them. Current systems should not be used to learn unless you have a clear understanding and are willing to check every word and check your reasoning. Future systems will be much better though so this problem isn’t going anywhere. \nIf anything there should be a push to make these ideas more interpretable to a younger audience and give them the tools to navigate an increasingly complex market of ideas. They should be aware of the limitations and how when they use a piece of software their actions and the actions of those around them are influencing what they see next. \nIt should be used and taught with rigor. \nIt’s programming 2.0", ">\n\nDude no; \nChatGPT is the computer. \nDo you want to be the education system that banned the computer and then wondered why all the other education systems output modern tech workers, while your education system kept outputting chimney sweeps and car factory workers?", ">\n\nHW only exists to make students practice, and generally is worth less than 20% of the grade in a class. If a student chooses to use chat GPT to bypass it then that’s the student’s loss.\nUltimately exams are what schools use to evaluate a students knowledge and I don’t think that’s going to change anytime soon", ">\n\nThere are already programs that check if something was written by an AI or not. Also no student I know actually uses chatGPT for major assignments because chatGPT doesn’t know every text to ever be published so it doesn’t understand the context, and most of the time will just bullshit an answer that’s incorrect.\nEveryone I know that uses chatGPT for school do so for either for assignments so small and simple that it doesn’t make sense to quarantine, or they use it as a more advanced google that can answer questions more accurately than a search engine could, essentially just saving time.\n(most) students are using chatGPT largely as a productivity and time management tool rather than to cheat.", ">\n\nThis is like saying “in the age of calculators, the only way to ensure kids learn maths is to ban calculators in school”. If looked at correctly, chatgpt is an effect multiplier, learning just has to be rejigged to have kids learn to do things that they can’t simply ask chatgpt to do for them.", ">\n\nLess course work and more exams is the future in a world with chatGPT.", ">\n\nChatGPT will be a big no issue soon. I work in a research field and this was something we worried about last year. As of now there are multiple tools and even more being developed that catch the use of ChatGPT. There has been research published that list ChatGPT as a co-author, but for most research, and use by students, it will simply be forbidden and will easily be caught as well. The program does well but it has a particular style that can be caught. Again it will be a non-issue soon.", ">\n\nThis is like forbidding people to use a calculator because it can give you the result instant. A better way is to teach them how to use the calculator, because its here now and won't go away. Same with GPT. Children can learn way better/faster with ChatGPD if used correctly. Imaging having a private teacher for free which helps you learning every time of the day.", ">\n\nLet me ask you this. If ChatGPT could complete a students whole assignment, what would that student have learned from doing that assignment on their own that won’t simply be replaced with ChatGPT by a employer in the future?\nEven if ChatGPT doesn’t replace workers for a decade, why teach students skills that will inevitably be replaced and leave said students jobless in a decade?\nChatGPT won’t only be used in the workforce either. Linus Tech Tips has a video showing how ChatGPT can help people learn new skills and do troubleshooting on their own. If I remember correctly, he manages to completely build a pc by only strictly following what ChatGPT tells him to. It even managed to suggest the best parts for that computers specific use case. It was nowhere near perfect, but in the future it will get there.\nSince ChatGPT is such a useful tool in the workforce and at home, I think it’s crucial we teach students how to use it instead of banning them from it. Maybe students should be given a problem and tasked to use ChatGPT to find the solution or have students attempt to learn a new topic with ChatGPT. I’m not a teacher, I just thought of those examples of the top of my head. I’m sure qualified teachers could think of better assignments than me.\nI could see ChatGPT helping a mechanic diagnose an issue so the mechanic could spend more time fixing the problem rather than diagnosing and I can think of a few examples in other jobs as well where ChatGPT will help a worker be more efficient and save more time.\nI think, if anything, we’re setting students up for failure by not teaching them about these tools that will take over the workforce and help in everyday life.", ">\n\nYou’ll still have to pass a test. Relax.", ">\n\nIt “fairs” extremely well? Maybe some additional time spent observing ChatGPT could actually benefit some", ">\n\nThere’s just no way you can use ChatGPT to do all of your work for you and be successful at any moderately high level of academic pursuit. Not without learning the material yourself, and if you’ve done that, I don’t think it matters so much whether you used chatGPT and for what along the way.\nFrankly if you start our using chatGPT early in school, you won’t even be able to ask the right questions in the right way and include the necessary refinements to do more complex and demanding assignments down the road. \nAlso, tests are still a thing aren’t they? ChatGPT doesn’t help you perform in person in a monitored environment - not in a way that would allow you to skip learning the material. I don’t really get this aspect of your cmv. As long as tests don’t allow access to ChatGPT, anyone who didn’t learn the material is going to be exposed..", ">\n\nThere are already programs that detect ChatGPT writing.", ">\n\nThe children who want to cheat will always find a way to do so. It doesn’t matter how much you do to restrict it, it’ll just make them find new means of doing so. \nSource: I did GCSE’s in the UK, AP in the US. Trust, kids will cheat even in sterile environments. Especially if it’s a huge room and there are few moderators. A lot of us are scared of repercussions but those who aren’t won’t let anything stand in there way—region and proctoring be damned.", ">\n\nI require them to complete an outline first. Outline must be submitted to me before I take the essay. Google doc lets you see that they write it and when each sentence was written. It’s helped.", ">\n\nCHATGPT is a tool, and in some applications (not all), it can help students do their homework. Consider the calculator. Do students not need to learn formulas and critical thinking just because they can punch numbers into calculators?\nNo, math is still a skill that is valuable if for no other reason then because it trains your brain to solve problems.\nOne of the things that surprises me is that ChatGPT can use words and explain things to students even when a teacher is not available or when there isn’t one. we should consider this an educational opportunity rather than a disadvantage.\nThere are so many amazing things we humans can do when we simply have tools to help us. ChatGPT is no different.", ">\n\nYou can’t force people to live in the past. Chat GPT is here to stay. Education now needs to focus on teaching people how to use AI, and how to develop a skill that can’t be replaced by AI.", ">\n\nHow about getting students engaged in what they’re learning and excited to learn. Find what they’re good at and double down on it. Don’t make school a fucking quarantine bubble. Socialize, allow them to teach and learn from each other. Replace the potential for cheating with collaboration assignments in person. “Children will cheat if given the opportunity” is such horse shit. If somebody doesn’t know or wasn’t taught something well then yea they’re gonna look to get it right so they can obtain approval. How about teaching them so they won’t cheat??", ">\n\nThats not it. I don’t have an answer for you, but thats not it.", ">\n\nHow about just have the kids do a presentation on \"their\" report with Q&A at the end. They'll have no choice but to know the info.... which is the point.", ">\n\nWell, making an AI that detects if something was made by an AI shouldnt be hard", ">\n\nI wonder if anyone has tried training a machine to look at assignments and give a confidence interval of the assignment being either human or machine in origin.", ">\n\nYeah we call that stuff examns...", ">\n\nThe problem with your suggested approach is that it just reinforces the current failures of the education system. It doesn't actually teach us the skills that you will be able to use in the field. \n\nYou can look up formulas for physics and you can double check online for any coding questions. Chat gpt is a tool and I think forbidding students from using it will just be a disservice to them and everyone in the future. It's not going to go away any time soon so how about instead of teaching children to cheat more effectively, we teach them how to use chat gpt to its full potential? It can speed up so many tasks to such a degree that students will be able to recieve more advanced education in the time that was saved by using chat gpt", ">\n\nI mean, there are plenty of good reasons already said, but wouldn't it just be easy to cheat. You get home, ask Chat.gpt for a result, print it out. Bring it with you to the school quarantine, copy it into the computer. (Unless you would like a full strip search of the students upon entering, which is wrong in so many ways)", ">\n\nI could use this in my program all I wanted and pass courses with perfect scores, and at the end of my degree I’d have a licensure exam that I’d fail cause I didn’t learn anything.", ">\n\nGreat idea! While let's just ignore the real world and keep our heads in the sand. Let's also get rid of computers and ink pens and go back to stone and chisel!", ">\n\nInstead of asking students to write ...ask them to spot the mistakes and correct the essays.\nThat requires way more knowledge and mastership.", ">\n\nI feel like this is a modern day equivalent to saying that now that the internet is available at the family computer, students must complete their work entirely under supervision.\nAI is here and more that is better is coming and people need to learn how to integrate with it rather than fight it. It's going to take some jobs. Just like the cotton gin and steam drill took work from people who then immediately transitioned to other work that the machine couldn't do and to running to machine itself. People will need to run ChatGPT. Feed it, verify its output, clean it up and submit the report based on CGPT4.0's write up. Individuals need to know the material, sure, but we can't really keep students off the internet and trying to do so just wastes resources and makes teachers pull their hair out.", ">\n\nI think the problem lies deeper. Humans and especially children want to learn and understand. One of the most common words a 5 y/o uses is \"why\". \"Why do airplanes fly? Why is the sun bright? Why can't I have candy? Why isn't the house collapsing? It is bigger than my sandcastle that fell over.\" And the education system should be ashamed of itself that it kills this curiosity and motivation of the children. I don't want to go too deep into possible solutions. Just one anecdote from myself:\nWe had to produce an educational video. For that we got 20 hours time. We worked around 30, met at my apartment and filmed after a day off homeschooling. Nobody thought of cheating with chatgpt because we have the script our character. On the other hand: I should colour a heart now and I don't want to, so I don't do it.\nEveryone has their video and colouring schematics and we should encourage the prior to the latter, making the demand for cheating less important \nAlso we sent around our homeworks all the time. The concept of homework isn't great at all", ">\n\nHomeschool. Problem solved.", ">\n\nSorry, u/Own-Listen1552 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nHow is ChatGPT different than what Math teachers had to go through when calculators become a thing?\nAt first, they banned them \"because the students have to learn the material!\" \nStudents rebelled because \"We'll always have a calculator available.\"\nEventually, teachers relented and now allow calculators in the class.\nDo you see the trajectory of ChatGPT going any different?\nAs for ChatGPT improving, if everybody is using it then it won't be able to improve because the only new input will just be reinforcing feedback from its own work.\nAs for children cheating, how is using ChatGPT different than any other sort of plagiarism detection that teachers already have to deal with? Also, the makers of ChatGPT also provide a tool that will tell you if a particular work product was produced by it. Isn't that good enough of a deterrent?\nAir gapping the kids from legitimate research material seems to be a bit extreme to me.", ">\n\nWhen I was young, calculators weren't allowed. Later, we were allowed to use them, but only on some tests.\nPersonally, I thought that was stupid. It's like training a carpenter, but not allowing power tools.\nAI is here to stay. Teach them how to use that useful tool to maximum effect, instead of teaching a work method which will likely be obsolete within five years." ]
> Agree that airgapped areas are necessary but the best way to educate children in the era of ChatGPT is to develop a ChatGPT based tool that quizzes children on homework they hand in.	[ "/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^\| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.", ">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?", ">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.", ">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?", ">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.", ">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?", ">\n\nYou mean a grade?", ">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication", ">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.", ">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)", ">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.", ">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.", ">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.", ">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.", ">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?", ">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.", ">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.", ">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.", ">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.", ">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.", ">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.", ">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.", ">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.", ">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.", ">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.", ">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.", ">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.", ">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.", ">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use", ">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.", ">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.", ">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.", ">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.", ">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.", ">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.", ">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.", ">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).", ">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.", ">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.", ">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.", ">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.", ">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.", ">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.", ">\n\n\nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \n\nWhy? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it. \n\nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \n\nWhy? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? \nLet's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project. \n\nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.\n\nTotally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator.", ">\n\nFor the most part, knowledge workers perform a given amount of work in a given amount of hours, and the number of them hired by a company is TotalHoursNeeded/NumHoursPerEmployee. E.g. if you have 100 manyears of work to get done in a typical year, you employ 100 people.\nChat GPT isn't going to \"replace\" people wholesale, because as you say someone still needs to supervise it. But it looks to be on track to increase the productivity of programmers (can write a first draft of code and finds many of the bugs instantly). \nSame for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones. \nSo now the TotalNeeded is decreased by some percentage, let's say 10% to start. Now you only need 90 human programmers to do that same work. With 25% efficiency gain, you need 75. With 50%, 50. Etc. \nOr take translation jobs. Today, an editor spends roughly 3 minutes per word editing machine translated text, and 1 minute per word editing human-translated text. As long as editors are more expensive per hour than first translation people, it still makes sense much of the time to hire translators, because the software isn't free. \nBut the graph of machine translation \"efficiency\" is trending towards taking the same amount of time to edit as a human translator. As soon as that's hit, there's literally no reason to hire human translators, only editors. \nAnd if the editing time goes down to 30 seconds/word because of further AI assistance to the editor, you only need half as many of those.", ">\n\nThere is currently two better solutions being worked on - one of which is already being used to some degree. \nThe first is ChatGPT developers themselves making moves to make AI written works to be identified by \"watermark\" or similar. I don't thi k this one has taken effect at all yet. \nAnother is by a separate dev team that allows teachers to use software to determine the amount of an essay, for example, that is written by AI what the likelihood of any one sentence or paragraph to have been written by AI. This allows the teachers to use discretion when determining if the student used the AI in a way that they find acceptable or not. This way instead kf running from the scary AI educators can actually utilize tyhe AI with students to help them develop their writing and other communications.", ">\n\nWhat about kids with transportation issues? When I was in school I knew kids that drove almost an hour each way to get there. I certainly couldn’t have asked my parents to drop everything to take me all the way to school so I could do my homework if I forgot. Bus schedules? Do you think schools want to waste more money by burning more gas for extra routes? I understand where you’re coming from, but for a fair amount of children—especially in poorer, more rural areas—that getting to school and back is such a delicate balancing act that such a thing would just punish them.", ">\n\nI've seen a few key things from academics testing out ChatGPT (I have not signed up myself):\n\nIt tends to produce confident, convincing nonsense. It doesn't actually understand what it's writing about, and I hear it shows.\nIt makes up citations. Real authors in the field, real journals... but made-up titles. Things like that, since, again, it doesn't actually understand citations.\n\nThis suggests that, for assignments requiring the demonstration of genuine, in-depth understanding, and not merely the ability to summarize facts, ChatGPT will fail.\nA similar example that you bring up in the comments is programming cheat sheets into calculators - but for well-designed engineering exams (including the licensure exams, at least in the US), cheat sheets are fine and often either allowed or provided. A well-designed exam tests the ability to apply principles, not knowledge of equations, so a cheat sheet is harmless, or even allows the exam to work better (since people aren't distracted with memorizing equations).", ">\n\nThere are three criticisms that I have of this approach. \n\n\nShould we not teach to the environment that we live in? Yes, education often imposes arbitrary constraints like time tests but for research and reports why not let people use and work around all resources? If you can work around chat gpt to work efficiently, then do it. You learn what it can and can’t do and how to use it effectively as a tool. \n\n\nCan chatGPT on it’s own actually write a good essay? From what I have seen it can pull together a few sources. It can generally write fluff based on other things that it has seen. But it struggles to write analysis. It can’t interrogate a source or make value judgements. It could be useful for doing some filler or providing ideas but if to do an actual report, I think it would be insufficient. \n\n\nAn assignment that can be done using chatgpt is probably boring. Here I am writing an essay for no reason other than I find it interesting to discuss this topic. Perhaps, we arent giving students interesting enough assignments or we are overloading them to the point that they don’t have the time to engage? If chatGPT turns out to be an issue maybe it’s more of an indictment of the structures and norms of education.", ">\n\n\n\nhomework in the form of essays, take home tests, coding assignments, would be completed on school grounds. \n\n\nCongratulations, you've invented the \"cram school\".\nI'd recommend reading through your post again and actually thinking about the things you've said. Because essentially, you're merely advocating for the wholesale elimination of homework and for education outside of that to remain totally unchanged. It's almost literally, \"Make the school day 30% longer\".\nMy solution to the \"problem\" of students potentially using ChatGPT to cheat on homework: I don't think you need a hilariously convoluted system of homework \"boiler rooms\" redolent of national security apparatus, that requires schools to adopt ruinously expensive and disruptive technological and administrative changes.\nIt would be sufficient if we institute a system whereby teachers are encouraged to, let's say... \"test\" their students, whether by regular written exams or by talking to them in what I'll call \"classes\", to ensure they understand the material they've been assigned to learn.\nThis method ensures that students cannot use AI homework bots to coast through classes (since they'll literally be found out the very next class), and has the added benefit of not adding three hours to every teacher's day.", ">\n\nWhat about pen and ink?", ">\n\narguably I can just copy a ChatGPT output by hand. So I think that is a first level measure, but not a complete solution.", ">\n\nIt's a better solution than prison just because the curriculum can't keep up with technology.\nWhen calculators arrived on everyone's phone and everyone's pocket did you advocate for the same solution? Unlikely, so why only now with this system?", ">\n\nWell I did and I was. When I was studying engineering in the 80s we routinely could not arrive at exams with a calculator. Even then calculators were programmable enough to allow students to write cheat sheets in calculator memory.\nIt forced us to memorize equations, principals of engineering, and independent thinking. I’m a better engineer because I did.", ">\n\nSo you're what, almost 60? And you think what's best for children is to be like you? Don't you think you may be a bit out of touch?\nAlso, your view was about K12 students, not engineering students.", ">\n\nNo. As I replied, leaning on tools as a crutch all your life will limit your ability and function as a human. For example, you could argue that basic math isn’t necessary. As matter of fact that was an argument years ago with the advent of calculators.\nHowever, humans should be able to exist and functions without a digital crutch. You should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator. You should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google. There are basic elements of duration necessary since we are all still wet grey matter.", ">\n\n\nYou should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator\n\nBut why?\n\nYou should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google\n\nAgain, why?\nWhere do you get your \"should\" from?\nI have basically all human knowledge in my hand, every equation or conversion I'll ever need day to day, even every language I'll likely ever encounter. Why shouldn't I leave my brain free to think about what it wants and to use my incredible resource as and when it's needed?\nDo you envision some Saw-like situation where you're locked to a wall and need to solve maths equations at pain of death?", ">\n\nThe less you use your brain the less likely your body is to maintain it. Our body functions through a use or lose it principle. Just look people who lose movement function/muscle just by being bedridden for a long time. Our brain is not different.\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.", ">\n\nIs wasting resources on process you can deletage outside not using your brain? You free up that space to put to what you decide is important.\n\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.\n\nThe weakest man with a gun can take out the strongest bodybuilder.", ">\n\nAnd if you decide Tik tok and Netflix are important? How do you think that will affect the cognitive ability of kids?\nI didn't mention strength nor physical strength. And even then the strongest man with a gun will probably take out the weakest man with a gun.(An actual fair comparison)", ">\n\nCouldn't chatgpt (or somesuch AI) be asked \"Hey - did you write this?\" and nip this sort of thing in the bud?", ">\n\nNo, Chat GPT doesn't remember everything it's said, the potential things it could say are huge and even if someone wrote something that Chat GPT might say, it could be a coincidence.", ">\n\nWell, strike that idea then.\nStill though - there must be some way to use AI to deal with this. \"set a thief to catch a thief\" and all that.", ">\n\nChat GPT (and most generative AIs) use GANs to generate content. \nIn laymen's terms (and extremely simplified as it's above my level of understanding) a GAN is 2 AI systems competing against each other, a creator AI that creates content and a checker AI that decides if the content was genuine or made by the other AI. \nSo any automated way to tell if it's AI generated can be built into the checker AI in future versions and the creator AI will learn to avoid whichever features the checker AI is spotting.", ">\n\nChatGPT is just another mechanism for reducing the need for labor, and it's not going away. \nChildren will need to be educated in both how to make effective use of it (for as long as it's not sufficient to completely eliminate mental labor), and also in the ethics of not using it. Always forcing them to write in airgapped places isn't going to do that, it just makes them resent it. \nAlso: essay writing on a scale needed to really learn long-form writing is not very amenable to doing in an airgapped classroom, because honestly we're not using dead-tree sources of information anymore already, so doing their research pretty much has to include doing it on line. \nBut really: laborious manual long-form essay writing is going to go the way of penmanship and looking things up in a library as an unneeded skill very quickly. We need children to adjust to that reality of the modern world rather than pretending it will go away. \nPeople are still needed (for now) to do the important part of writing essays without doing the laborious bit that ChatGPT automates anyway: deciding what to write, and editing it into a convincing and well-written form. \nForcing kids to spend a lot of time learning how to write the basic bulk part of essays is a lot like teaching them how to make buggy-whips in shop class: a pointless exercise. \nIt would be better to give them all prewritten ChatGPT essays and have them learn the limitations and capabilities.", ">\n\nIs ChatGPT really that much more effective than just grabbing things off Wikipedia? I was asking it things about elections and it was just Wikipedia from two years ago", ">\n\nThe answer is NEVER to limit technology. It’s to teach the new generation how to use that technology to achieve the same goal.\nIt’s pointless to ban computers and teach the memorization of dates in history class. It’s much more productive to teach online research skills so that if an individual needs to know the date of a particular moment in history, they can reliably Google it.\nChatGPT is the same. It renders writing essays as pointless, and it necessitates the teachers to adapt to new teaching styles, such as teaching the skills on how best to manipulate ChatGPT to return the information you need.", ">\n\nI was banned from using programming calculators when I studied engineering in the 80s during exams. It forced the students to all be on the same level playing field and forced us to actually know the equations, their applications, and the processes of whatever engineering course I was taking.\nIt made us better engineers.", ">\n\nHow does handicapping you make you a better engineer? If I put you and an engineer trained with technology in the same room together, who do you think would accomplish the task faster?", ">\n\nThe handicapped engineer, easily. The point of forcing students to actually learn the material is so that they understand how to reason about the underlying processes when they need to troubleshoot something going wrong, and understand the tradeoffs between approaches and how to select the best one for the task. \nOnce you understand things deeply you don't actually need training in doing things quickly because it's immediately intuitive how to apply a technological process to save time. The guy that leaned heavily on technology is basically fucked if he has to use a technique or software that he didn't specifically train on since he doesn't have a good foundation to abstract from. It would be more appropriate to call this person a technician.", ">\n\nThe purpose of calculators is to do the menial part of the work, not to solve whole processes. The engineer that learned with calculators likely knows how to select the right process to solve a problem, but uses the calculator to do the math faster and with fewer errors.", ">\n\nAt the college level, we’re not talking about tools to add and multiply. We’re talking about tools like Wolfram Alpha that do entire symbolic manipulations for you. If I took a calculus class and on all the assignments used Wolfram Alpha to find derivatives, do you think I would have learned anything?\nThat is what ChatGPT is doing for essays", ">\n\nThere are things called pencil and paper.", ">\n\nAs I said, this is the first line defense. However as I already commented to another user. I can simply hand copy ChatGPT output. Essentially not doing my own independent research, writing, coding, and studying.", ">\n\nWhy don't you consider that research? \nThe first source was the best. It's incredibly efficient research IMO.", ">\n\nThe idea of tool removal has always been flawed. From calculators to chat GPT and beyond. If your test is so flimsy that a simple tool invalidates it then the test is poorly built. Test shouldn't be simple busywork tasks, they should require thinking, problem solving, complex thought. If it's just a game of memorization that can be cheated by answers on a paper, you've built a bad test.\nover memorization (which is what our current school systems teach) is not only unhelpful, but also harmful. We live in an era of wikipedia being a reliable source, of vast access to tools both online and phsycial. We should be teaching kids they should do the work but with the help of those tools, not despite them.\nThe main issue with your argument is that based on what you've said, i can assume you think the current school system is a good one but so many studies have shown that at least here in the US, the school systems are some of the worst in the world. It's this memorize, ignore tools, singular focus mentality that plays such a big role.\nIf we were more creative with education, incorporating tool utilization into the learning process, we'd likely have a major improvement to our educational successes. I could go on about how the education system prefers certain kinds of students over others, and how many students are left behind simply because they don't learn like other kids and are therefore punished, but I won't. All I'll say is that more restrictions on how and what kids learn isn't going to help them learn more or better.\nand in 15 years when chat GPT is a part of daily life in every single company on the planet in some way or another (which I'm beyond certain it will be), kids who were taught how to properly utilize it will have just such a huge advantage in the workforce over those who weren't", ">\n\nRather than attempt to find ways to prevent new technology from interfering with existing pedagogy, shouldn't we review and revise pedagogy as new technology develops? \nIf a chat AI program can write these things, what is the point of having humans repeatedly do the same work? We don't expect people to use an abacus when doing math, or limit their research to what's in the library card catalogue, or require printed paper publications as essay resources; we adapted to the calculator, and to the internet and search engines. So too should we adapt to things like ChatGPT, not by trying to pretend it doesn't exist, but by finding ways to incorporate it into a more holistic approach to learning.\nRather than chain kids to an airgapped room on school grounds outside of school hours to do homework that's of dubious educational value in the first place, we should take this as an opportunity to refocus schooling on in-class engagement and direct instruction. ChatGPT and programs like it are showing us yet another thing we as humans can outsource to our technology, so why struggle to do things in a more difficult and inefficient way?", ">\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\nIn addition, AI is only as good as the data it is fed. You must still be able to do the work on your own to analyze when the AI is giving valid outputs (garbage in, garbage out). This is especially true, when AI runs the risks of being owned or operated by those with a specific agenda. Can you imagine the trouble that would result if people relied on AI to determine who to vote for, but someone was able to pay the operators to have the AI promote them?\nRelying on AI to do our work for us is a distillation of an appeal to authority fallacy on a large scale (if the AI says it, it must be true).", ">\n\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\n\nThis is something I worry about A LOT when it comes to AI. Our collective understanding of the subjects that we usually classify as \"the humanities\" is constantly evolving as we learn more, and especially as a more diverse set of people are allowed to study, research and put forth opinions and arguments.\nImagine if students were outsourcing all their history, psychology, sociology and philosophy homework to a chatbot with a 1950s understanding of those subjects.\nImagine doctors outsourcing psych patient diagnoses to a chatbot with the same understanding.\nOn an arguably less \"serious\" but still critically important moral and political topic, imagine if all/most videogame art was outsourced to an AI engine with a 1990s sensibility for female characters. Same for all kinds of representation and diversity.\nHow about politics and political science in general... ha!\nEtc, etc etc.\nIt is NOT the case that we already have discovered all the true answers to the big questions, and we can merely turn to a \"knowledge calculator\" like ChatGPT to spit out the truth.\nEven if AI can pretty accurately reflect the discourse of the day, as it is currently understood and accepted, our collective knowledge and culture will stagnate if we do not actively participate in developing it, and we will all pay the price for that.", ">\n\nThese are all moralistic arguments that ultimately don’t mean anything.", ">\n\nI would say they are more epistemic arguments, which do matter greatly in the context of education (which is what the op was referring to).", ">\n\nAre any of these things mentioned actually realistic concerns? Someone is going to train an AI bot to generate 90s female art characters with big tits?\nNo. Lol and even if someone did, who cares?", ">\n\nConsidering how many people believe obviously fake stories that have no supporting evidence (and in spite of contrary evidence), yes, I believe they are very real concerns.\nIf an AI says we should use Brawndo in farming because its got what plants crave (electrolytes), we should probably be able to justify it with reasoning beyond \"the AI says so.\"", ">\n\nWho is suggesting we do anything “just because an AI said so”? \nDo you read books and think everything in it is true “because the book says so”?", ">\n\nHow do you determine if what the book/ai said is false?\nYou would typically do it through a process of research and discovery.\nPeoples' ability to do research and discovery will be greatly diminished if we rely on AI to do those things for us (which is what the previous posters were suggesting).\nTherefore, reliance on AI will lead to us losing the ability to discern if the results of what the AI is saying is correct.", ">\n\nWhat? Lol that doesn’t make any sense at all. \nIt is not like if we use AI then all previous knowledge is simply forgotten or lost. It’s all still there.", ">\n\nForcing homework at school makes that \"not homework\", and this approach has never worked. You cant reject change, it never works. Every time there has been a game changing event, people adapted. Those who tried to reject change disappeared. Horse carriages disappeared from roads because something else replaced it. Some people supposedly rejected progress, but they are lying to themselves, they still use modern tech or services at some point.\nAnyway, the change is here, and it made essays irrelevant. Time to find another way to test people skills. \nGive it a little time though. ChatGPT costs a ginormous amount of money to run and will not stay free for long either.", ">\n\nIt's not just ChatGPT, the actual innovation is not the interface but lies in algorithms that can recreate natural language of similar quality with smaller data samples. There are also OpenSource datasets like ThePile, etc. so even if OpenAI moves to a paid model (and they will, quickly. You can already sign up to be first in line for the API), there will be other free providers.", ">\n\nHaving coded AIs, I disagree. ChatGPT is a regular trained AI. The novelty is the scale of the operation, and the fact there is a public API.\nNo one ever spent that much money on resources to run and train an AI publicly. I am pretty sure google has done something similar with user data sets to make their search engine and general ecosystem.\nI wish there was a way to have algorithms working with smaller data sets and produce similar results, but it kind of does not work that way.", ">\n\nThere are already tools to identify ChatGPT generated texts. Such tools will improve as another use of literally the same technology.\nJust as teachers submit essays for identifying plagiarism, teachers will submit essays for identifying AI-generated text. \nFurther, a focus could change from grading students on what they know to grading students' ability to ask meaningful, content-based questions about the subject. After all, knowing facts isn't particularly valuable as a skill. Integrating facts and discovering valuable questions is still something that remains a uniquely human skill. And is where people will continue to add value as AI becomes more advanced.", ">\n\nStudents have always been able to 'cheat' on work done outside the classroom, by copying or somehow getting others to do their work for them, even before the internet. Yes with more advanced modern technology it is easier but this has always been a concern. \nAs regular learning environments like supervised classrooms are already 'quarantined' in the way you descibe you are fundementally just suggesting an increase in learning hours as a supplement to homework. This has been suggested by many for various reasons but it would overall cuase more issues than it fixes. It increases work load on teachers and administrators, stretching already thin educational budgets, and forces increased mental strain on children. It would limit their ability to do other recreational and out of ciriculum activities. This would be disruptive and controlling when the quantity of teaching and learning time that children recive is already considered sufficiant for a good education.", ">\n\nHell the only thing stopping me from using ChatGPT regularly for my work now is that it's always at capacity.", ">\n\nApply tests that are hand written, doesnt matter how a person obtains the knowledge, actually learning the subject is most important thing.", ">\n\nThere is no amount of ChatGPT that could influence a good old oral exam where the teacher evaluates the understanding via a little chat.", ">\n\nSo tired of this view. We shouldn’t be fighting technology. Teach kids to use the resources they have to find answers. It’s such a waste of 12 years of school, teaching kids to memorize facts and follow rules. \nInstead, every test should be open book and reward the best answers. Ask the kids to show their work or explain their thought process so we reward understanding of a topic rather than memorization of steps or text.", ">\n\n20 years ago, there were already homework communities and learn groups. Even from the publishers of school books and with free access to tutors. Ok, they didnt do the final homework for me, but gave me a great starting point.\nBeing the kid who transcribes a wiki page was already stupid back then when others could call you out:\nBut I guess the actual problem is lack of digital literacy with teachers, they're always 5-10 years behind.", ">\n\nIf you are testing skills that can be done by free tools on the internet, then you are testing irrelevant skills.\nThe best way to educate kids is to test for skills they need, not skills they objectively don't.\nI was able to witness a couple of universities adapt to tests during quarantine, and follow reports on how the new methods would be used going forward.\nThe results where thus:\nMass offline testing is incredibly cost efficient (one examiner per ~300 students), but the tests results are a poor indicator of real world performance.\nOne to One testing is incredibly expensive, but can, when done right, test actual understanding and performance.\nBoth will be useful, of course. Mass testing is most useful when used in a way that students aren't incentivized to cheat, such as when framed as practice.", ">\n\nOne of the upsides of needing to prevent this kind of tech from cheating assignments is that teachers should focus on having students be able to do their homework at school. (As a former teacher, we were trying to do this already- no more than 15 min of homework per class). \nI dont think we need to do quite what you say. We just need to limit outside electronics and have in-person classrooms or computer labs with programs designed to be AI-proof. \nI have ALWAYS believed that cell phones/internet watches should be stored in school lockers (at most) and never allowed anywhere else on campus during the school day. If anyone needs to contact the students they contact the desk who relays their message/other need. Many schools already do this.", ">\n\n∆\nI agree with this. It would help.", ">\n\nThank you!", ">\n\nThat is utterly pointless.\nThere is no reason to limit the available tools.\nThis just reminds me of the entire \"you won't have a calculator wherever you go\" argument.\nSchool should instead put a focus on responsibly using available tools.", ">\n\nAnd if students choose to use them irresponsibly, what should schools do?\nAnd can you please define what constitutes responsible use? Because despite knowing about plagiarism, people still copy and paste from the internet. Perfect abstinence is easier than perfect moderation after all.", ">\n\nJust return to hand written essays and have more oral exams.", ">\n\n∆l\nActually of all comments having oral exams compliments my post and I agree with you. Enjoy the delta.", ">\n\nIn a Faraday cage.", ">\n\nIf children can just generate work with ChatGPT, it simply shows that children are not being taught anything valuable. (Once ChatGPT responses can be generated in almost unlimited amounts at very low cost, it necessarily means those responses are of low value)\nInstead shouldn't we be teaching children to provide more valuable outcomes that ChatGPT can't replicate?", ">\n\nBeing able to do on your own what ChatGPT does with access to an immense amount of data and processing power is valuable. The actual writing isn't valuable, obviously, but it would be silly to expect it to be. It's just a side effect of practice, you spend time making things of little or no value to build up the skills you'll need to make something that actually matters. That's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\nI think you'd be hard pressed to teach a class of children to outperform ChatGPT in writing without ever asking them to write something that could also be done via AI. What would that even look like?", ">\n\n\nThat's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\n\nIt is a problem. That is why I hated math class until 2nd year of university.", ">\n\nDid you start discovering novel math results in your second year of university, or was that just the point at which you first encountered problems you found interesting, despite the fact that someone else had already solved them before? Thinking back the class you didn't hate, do you think it should be removed if someone can construct an AI to give all the answers you gave?", ">\n\nThis is only a method for evaluating students, it doesn't do anything to educate them.\nChatgpt is potentially a great tool for education but trying to find complex ways around it for homework is pointless. When testing fact retention is required using school/university computers with no web browsing makes sense. For any other test or situation it's a tool that might be used.", ">\n\nI understand OPs concern. That said, I do not think you can create true quarantine for a multitude of reasons. \nThe biggest one is probably time. I worked through high school and university. Because I lived in the middle of nowhere it was about a 30 min drive to high school and then an hour to uni. Having to stay at these quarantine zones to complete assignments would have been hell on my schedule, car, and wallet. \nYou said it yourself, if someone is going to cheat, they will cheat. If I had to do the work in a quarantine zone, what exactly stops me from doing the actual work on my computer at home, printing it all out, and then just writing that into the computer at the quarantine zone? Unless you want to try having students write an entire essay in their hour long class? There has to be a point where they go home and then this falls apart.", ">\n\nThere are already lots of ways to cheat in homework and mostly our steps to deal with that amount to the honour system, and by university level, automated plagiarism detection (which can be quite easily avoided). The point you \"won't argue\" that people will cheat if given the opportunity is probably the actual crux of what's wrong with your suggestion and the part that needs a big [citation needed]. Concluding that the majority of people are fundamentally dishonest is a big assumption to handwave away. \nIf you want an education, cheating is stupid. Ultimately you might get a paper qualification out of it but you'll have actually learned nothing - you won't hold up long against someone who has done it properly when you actually have to apply the skills. Or if you do, then the assignments weren't that crucial to the learning in the first place.", ">\n\nMany of the things I learned in school were largely irrelevant. I couldn't use a calculator to do long division. After I passed those early elementary school years I never did long division again. I wouldn't even argue learning the long division algo is mandatory. It's nice to have learnt it I guess, but I spent way too many hours on it. I can see learning fundamentals of essay writing, etc, are great, but why can't we just evolve to learn more effective things in life? ChatGPT should be used as a tool, not viewed as a detriment.", ">\n\nIt'd suggest that the best way to educate them is to embrace ChatGBT and teach them to use it well. Your method is a bit like teaching kids to do math without calculators or accounting without excel or financial software. There is some value, but it runs out very quickly and you're at a social and competetive disadvantage for taking some archane principled approach to education that is more of a defense of \"how we used to do it\".\nI'm old enough to remember when using a word processor was sometime forbidden for reasons of fairness - that seems entirely disconnected now from doing good work and it's almost hard to envision the thought process of those who thought everything should be hand written for students. \nIsn't the kid who is amazing at utilizing tools like ChatGBT going to do much better in the world than the one who does not? Your idea of \"proper education\" would easily regress back to needing to do all subjects scrawled in dirt with sticks and grunted in non-standardized language.", ">\n\nOR, chatgpt will be a great boon to the entire education system:\nIncreased accessibility: ChatGPT and other AI-powered systems can provide education to individuals who otherwise would not have access to it, due to geographical, financial, or other barriers.\n\nPersonalized learning: ChatGPT can provide personalized education experiences based on each student's strengths, weaknesses, and learning style.\n\n24/7 availability: ChatGPT can operate 24/7, providing students with access to education at any time, anywhere, which can be especially beneficial for those with demanding schedules or for individuals in remote areas.\n\nScalability: ChatGPT can provide education to a large number of students simultaneously, which could help to address the shortage of teachers and resources in some areas.\n\nCost-effectiveness: ChatGPT can be a more cost-effective option for providing education compared to traditional methods, as it does not require physical classrooms or teachers.\n\nImproved student engagement: ChatGPT can provide interactive, engaging learning experiences that can hold students' attention and foster deeper learning.\n\n--Source: ChatGPT", ">\n\nThere a lots of places where texts and exams are “open book”. The questions have to be written differently, and the point is that you’re not testing someone’s ability to memorize, but rather their ability to understand. This is a more difficult test to write, so in theory AI could force education to improve since everyone would a virtual tutor with them at all times.", ">\n\nI'm a teacher and I've been thinking a lot about this the last couple months. Changes within the education system/curriculum/syllabus/retraining of teachers will take far too long to keep up with the ease of access to, and success of, chatgpt and AI in general. \nThe only solution moving forward both short and long term is to embrace it, there is no stopping it now anyway and if we don't all want to be out of a job in 5 years we need to - \n- demonstrate feasible/moral/ethical use of such tools\n- create more opportunities for collaborative learning/hands-on/problem solving tasks and ones that increase communication skills between peers. \nHow this applies to each individual, specific task will vary and must require a lot of creativity and trial and error, but I think relying too heavily on your department of education to handle this (or most 'boots on the ground' problems) will ultimately only degrade a students experience and ability for learning.", ">\n\nI'm with you on what you're trying to accomplish. I just don't know that it's the \"best\" way. \nFor instance, how is homework performed in school superior to trusting the kids to learn the material, which would then be tested by oral exam? And yes, I do believe that asking a student to verbally explain a topic is a really good way to gauge mastery.", ">\n\nThere is not a hope in hell that we'll go back to hand written stuff. That's not how technology works. As the music companies. There are better ways to show you know a subject, for sure, than the current out of-date ones. That's for sure. Have you ever taken an on-line exam?", ">\n\nI argue to let them use chatGPT as it will be their future. This is similar to my generations \"you'll never walk around with a calculator so learn math.\" The future children will grow into a society where work means utilizing AI tech to help them thrive. If chatGPT helps them write an essay, and it's good, it means they're using resources. I agree, however, that we should supplement this with actual reading and writing.", ">\n\nI would argue that most of time that ChatGPT and similar technologies is going to be an issue is in 8-12 grade and college.\nThis technology is not going away, and it's only going to improve. Personally I would treat it like calculators, audio books and spell check.\nTech kids how to use the technology properly. Sure it's somewhat handy to calculate numbers in your head, but having the ability to do math in your head does not give you much of an advantage in today's world and not being able to doesn't hurt you much. But it's still critical to know formulas and how to peace together algebraic statements and word problems. \nKnowing how to spell properly is less important than knowing proper word usage - most times you're writing something it can be spell-checked in real time. Sure it's \"terrible that today's kids...\" don't know how to spell... but it's not going to affect their career. \nEnter ChatGPT - same thing. Should I spend the time to write a white paper on the changing advertising landscape to alert my boss about the a potential seismic shift in advertising revenue, or should I ask ChatGPT to write it? As a user I have to understand its limits and potential copywrite issues, but even more importantly how to verify that what it writes is correct and targeting the right audience. Is data from before 2020 going to be recent and accurate enough for my thesis? How do I supplement the discussion with real-world data? \nThis is our new reality. We should be learning how to use the tools properly, not trying to figure out to lock it down (which frankly makes as much sense as locking down the use of calculators or spell check).", ">\n\nI think there are already apps in place that are able to detect AI generated text (Read this article).\nAlso, I think a better method would be to simply have a database of ChatGPT (could be encrypted) generated text and make it available to already existing software that is use to detect plagiarism (this is just an exemple amongst many)", ">\n\nFrankly I don’t think high schoolers and below should be given homework or tests at all. One learns magnitudes better through exploration as opposed to mindless repetition. Engage with these kids intellectually, make them free thinking Athenians, not bags of knowledge of which they have no idea how to use.\nDoes it not surprise anyone that we train people for over a decade in intellect yet hardly have any intellectuals?", ">\n\nI would argue that society would be better off spending resources on teaching children how to use this tool effectively. Knowing how to get the right answer is what matters in this world.", ">\n\nThen answer this: Well why learn math at all? Seriously.\nWhy learn he concept of subtraction let alone division? I could and society has argued that with the advent of digital calculators. \nYet we learn it. \nLater we use calculators to take the mundane and already known processes to the next level. We abstract away the mundane. \nAs a EE having worked and am working on products you may be using right now to read this, when I develop new silicon and chips I don’t break out Karnaugh maps and lay down circuit using a T square and stencils of gates. But I sure the hell know what I’m doing and expect the tools to do for me. \nTeaching fundamentals of reading, writing, arithmetic, essays, research are just that fundamental.", ">\n\nI’d argue that the vast majority don’t need anything beyond basic math anyways. \nGo ask the average adult if they know the quadratic equation and what it means and you’d probably be disappointed.", ">\n\nChatGPT is here to stay, you'd better advocate for teaching people how to make the most of it and use it wisely instead of pretending it doesn't exist.\nOne of my favourite teachers always told students to use the best tools there are.", ">\n\nI think it depends completely on the topic. In my field of study, it’s fairly easy to come up with term paper assignments that the bot would be useless for. \nLooking back at the paper I wrote last year, I don’t see how any current bot could have helped, as it isn’t able to read or summarize specific sources (yet?).\nAn example of the type of assignments we get is “Discuss the role of state capacity in x and x conflict in light of (specific research paper)‘s dimensions of state capacity - do your findings confirm the findings of (authors), why or why not?\nThis way of combining literature made it difficult even for me to be on top of it, as there were no sources that had attempted this exact combination - it has to be original. \nAlso, I find it’s the best way to learn, because you have to rely on your own judgement and there are no shortcuts, even asking the professor was unhelpful as he wasn’t too familiar with the details.", ">\n\nThis is not the best way.", ">\n\n\nThese homework rooms would have Internet connected computers for use but access to ChatGPT would be filtered and blocked.\n\nThis wouldn't be feasible, there's far too many roundabout ways to still access ChatGPT. Security measures like domain filtering are just unproductive games of whack-a-mole. \nEdit: removed all the other stuff I wrote, as those points have already been mentioned in previous top-level comments.", ">\n\nHomework shouldn’t be the go-to method of “education” to begin with. Imo Universities should focus on the integral part of education: the lectures. Tools like chatgpt can help student who are actually interested in a subject to learn more easily about it, but whether students actually learn anything or not from a class won’t change regardless of if work is authentic or copied from an AI\nSource: I’m a college student and have had experience in both supervised environments where we had to do work without the use of computers/phones and solely-online environments where many students cheated", ">\n\nWhile this could work, it is not necessarily the best way in terms of accessibility and of learning in general. \nFirst, students with ADHD and certain other conditions may not necessarily be the able to be productive at all times, or at the specific time they have to work on those computers, especially if those computers are not in an environment ideal to that specific person. It would also not be very feasible to give students enough time on these computers to complete the bigger assignments and essays. \nSecond, while ChatGPT is quite advanced, it simply works by looking at language patterns and often gets factual details incorrect. For example, with bigger coding problems, it tries to import modules that do not exist or call on functions that it has not defined. In literature, it cannot analyze texts on much more than a surface level. I will admit it can use secondary sources for textual analysis, however, it is unable to come up with a clear thesis on its own. \nAdditionally, take-home tests can be just as easily cheated on using a normal Google search, and usually test thinking skills rather than understanding and knowledge. \nFinally, essay-writing and other types of assignments are generally not ideal for learning as they are only one type of skill, and university professors are recognizing this. Not only do they not work for all learning styles, but they are only used so commonly because of tradition. University professors are structuring assignments around ways that are innovative enough that ChatGPT is unable to work on them. Along with requiring specific readings which the AI might not have access to, and citing of all sources (which has always been a requirement that the AI might trip up on), they are also going away from the traditional essay format into others. For example, I am studying literature, a relatively essay-heavy field, and in my past few courses I have been asked to analyze comics (which the AI cannot read), edit other people’s essays and articles (from past courses), create a mock syllabus or lesson plan with justifications for each reading, and create annotated bibliographies as a stepping stone to an essay. All of these not only require different skills and encourage different types of learning and research but are quite difficult for an AI to do. \nAll in all, while your suggestion is great, the very nature of the AI and the fact that it exists at all is perhaps a sign that the best course of action is to rework the way we think about evaluation. After all, if an evaluation is such that an AI can complete it without the ability to actually think (it works by using observed language patterns), then perhaps the evaluation is not ideal.", ">\n\nI bet teachers and people thought the same thing about calculators when they came out or 1990s internet. AI bots like chat GPT are just a tool.", ">\n\nAll this effectively does is train kids to accomplish goals of a type that do not exist in the real world in a situation they will never realistically encounter. A better goal is adjusting testing criteria to account for this.\nThere might be very specific sets of knowledge for which rote memorization is appropriate, and for those, the air gapped testing may be appropriate. But I believe those are the exception rather than the rule. By and large, teaching kids to effectively utilize the tools that will be available to them is what we should be doing.", ">\n\nImagine learning where the only books are hand written.\nThe printing press took out a huge amount of repetitive labor in the learning process.\nAI/ChatGPT stands a good chance of removing a huge amount knowledge labor which stands between an idea and the end product. Learning to use the AI to best effect the Idea->End Product Chain is more important than worrying about memorizing formulae we will likely never need to remember. \nThe effort to restrict ChatGPT is just education system worrying about their Cheese Being Moved.", ">\n\nThis just doesn't make any sense to me. You're arguing that we shouldn't allow students to use tools they would have at their disposal in a real working environment, and for what? Why wouldn't you want students to use every tool at their disposal? How exactly is handicapping them helping them to understand the coursework?\nA much better approach would be to fundamentally alter how we teach to better prepare them for the workforce. Encouraging collaboration and creative problem solving skills is much more practical and effective.", ">\n\nChatGPT may pass the Bar, but I highly doubt it will replace lawyers or other professionals. \nThe whole point of credentialing is to drive accountability. Anyone can study the law and cite precedent without a law degree. Actually representing a client in a court of law requires oversight and knowledge. ChatGPT isn't perfect - it will make mistakes from time to time. So who is responsible when it makes a mistake? When is a client (who is not familiar with the law) supposed to know that a mistake has been made on their behalf? For this reason, until ChatGPT is literally perfect you're always going to need a credentialed professional to review the output.\nFor the record, I think ChatGPT is wonderful. But it's a tool that people will use, not a full-fledged replacement for professionals. My employer (a Fortune 500 company) has already rejected its use for internal projects. IT has the website blocked.", ">\n\nThe kids that are educated without its use will fall behind in business when faced with kids that are using it to its fullest extent.\nYou've successfully made an argument for people to succeed in a test that is worthless in the real world. Its parameters don't match.", ">\n\nThe best way to educate children is to teach them skills and strategies that will actually serve them in the workplace of the future. \nChatGPT already has reached the point of replacing humans (See Buzzfeed news). If ChatGPT can take the test or do the homework then what value is that education going to be to these students? Especially older students will quickly see rote memorization as a waste of time and so yes they probably will cheat if they have the opportunity. Trying to force these things to be “learned” and prove that knowledge by brute force banning things is going to be a costly uphill battle.", ">\n\nWhat if we modify how essays are written by students, by asking them to include citations (which is something ChatGPT can’t do)?\nWe can’t stop new tools from making old methods obsolete. But we can focus on enhancing critical thinking of students in a stepwise manner. When a new tool is created, think about how you can adapt rather than resist it.", ">\n\nWhy not just train an ai to spot ai written papers?", ">\n\nWhat about gradually putting more emphasis on oral assignments?", ">\n\nEverything you said makes perfect sense...IF the goal was to teach children simply how to write the perfect standard essay. But that is a very limited way of viewing education and what its real goal is. The real goal of education is to teach children how to think. To come up with the right questions, not just the right answers. In a world where a \"good enough\" essay on literally anything can be conjured as if by magic by a machine, what's the actual value of that exercise now? For a very long time teachers have used the essay as a way to evaluate how a person thinks. Now that a machine can write it for you, we need new ways to evaluate how students think. That's the real task we are facing. Fuck the essay, just like we ditched the slide rule for calculators and later computers, etc. Tools change but the real game remains the same: Think for yourself!", ">\n\nI'd say the best way would be to accept the reality of changing technology and reevaluating the approach we have towards education as a whole.\nGranted, I'd say that's only one half of the picture: reassessing how we conceive if jobs and labour in the face of increasing automation goes along with that, and I think neither really works without the other.\nBottom line is that human labour is more and more obsolete as time goes on, so human jobs will be less and less in demand (I'd argue moving away from a capitalistic system is the right call, but even if you don't, automation is still an incentive).\nSince a large part of the incentive of our current education system is \"prepare you for a job\" I think the whole thing is going to fall short in light of these kinds of systems developing.\nTheres lots of people now who pursue knowledge as a project of passion, rather than a means to an end, and I think moving to a system that supports and encourages that kind of ambition is the way to go.", ">\n\nI disagree. We should learn to use the tools we have efficiently. Otherwise you are not learning for your career but for some professors ego", ">\n\nThat’s not “education in the era of ChatGPT.” That’s education in the era before ChatGPT while we figure out what the world with ChatGPT will look like so we have some idea of what to do with it.\nThat’s also not “educating,” that’s just “assessment.” Assessment is simply a measuring system for education. As long as you think of the acquisition of knowledge and skill as requiring knowledge regurgitation and skill performance in isolation and divorced from context/individualized, then you’re going to end up at necessitating a kind of geofenced, Luddite assessment model. The training itself predicates the assessment method. How we assess is defined by how we teach, and vice versa.\nThe best assessment method to gauge understanding is, and always has been, conversation.\nAll we need to do is pair assessment with regular conversation between qualified teacher and student to determine if personal comprehension is present. Not an interview, not an interrogation — conversation. Problem solving performance contexts are also great revealer of internalized knowledge and skill.\nChatGPT is a relative nonissue if your approach to assessment is at all human.\nIt’s only a problem when you’re trying to mechanize and dehumanized education. “Rigorous” does not mean “mechanical.” We are going to have to trust the professional, knowledge- and skill-assessing judgements of humans who already know and can do.\nEducation reverts to having more emphasis on apprenticeship and mentorship models, where the relationship itself is part of the learning process. \n(The “accountability!” cranks are gonna love that…)", ">\n\nI have a strong suspicion that discussions like this, while very interesting, will be obsolete long before any changes can actually be implemented in schools. In fact, I'm pretty sure schools will be gone entirely in the near future.\nAs of right now, you can be taught almost any subject by an exceptionally well-spoken, fast and infinitely patient teacher called GPT to a university level, if not higher. Try it right now - go ask GPT to explain the political situation that allowed Alexander the Great to conquer Persia, or ask it to explain the raytracing algorithm. If there's a part you don't understand, ask it to clarify. You'll be amazed how accessible it makes advanced topics.\nNow, how long before we have VR software with a realistic-looking AI teacher, with an AI-generated voice, who can do the same thing, but respond to students' voices and use body language and visual demonstrations? Five years?\nHow long after that before this tech is cheap, and of such high quality that sending your kids to school will be a worse education?\nNow in, say, 20 years, we could have an AI system that takes a DNA sample, analyses a students genotype to understand what subjects they will be naturally good at, what education approaches will be most successful, and continuously improves its model of the student's behavior by observing them. It crafts a decades-long education journey tailored to the individual, and accompanies them the entire way.\nTeachers, as far as they've existed so far, don't have a chance.", ">\n\nAre you trying to test someone or teach them?\nIf the latter, why do you care about cheating? This reminds me of the ol' teachers who used to restrict calculators because \"you won't always have a calculator with you.\"", ">\n\nYou forget that for 99% of homework students could just copy each other's work. Having the answers out in the world accessible is not a new problem. You just make homework a small part of the grades and you make sure students understand it's important to actually do it or they won't do well on the tests.", ">\n\nThere are so many people that can’t do the basic math examples you mentioned somewhere and they went to school at a time when there were no calculators.\nOn the other hand I was allowed to use calculators in school pretty much the moment I left elementary school and I am really quite good at math even without assistance.\nTool usage is one of humanities key features and trying to work against it instead of finding ways to incorporate new technology into school and life seems backwards.", ">\n\nIronically the teacher will have to use an AI to decipher the \"hand written\" assignments.", ">\n\nYou can't force people to learn.", ">\n\nWhat about teaching how to think rather than how to memorize? Just a thought 💭", ">\n\nThey need to get rid of homework, and have students do their work while they're at school. It's awful, they just pile it on, even if a class only has a little homework that day, there's like 6 or 7 classes so it's a nightmare for students. Seems like the only way to prevent cheating is have them do work in class, so I hope for the students sake, they do that.", ">\n\nI’ll throw my idea into the ring, though we’re still a few years off from this technology:\nWe should have students interact with AI tutors that can prompt them questions and point out details. Then they can collaborate on assignments, and the AI tutor can give feedback and suggest snippets. The AI can evaluate their work and their engagement with the material.", ">\n\nOne of Transformers main applications is in search. Ie you get a set of embeddings you can compare the pairwise distances between embedding and get a list of scores that tell you which embeddings are most similar to the input. \nEssentially tools like google are made to reduce the search space for a given query collect likely links and then rerank the most likely results. \nChatgpt basically does this in a more direct way of searching through a space of potential responses. Basically trained on a task to predict next token given the previous tokens or fill in a mask\nTransformers permeate everything students use from the recommendation algorithms on TikTok Facebook, YouTube to search systems in google. \nIn my opinion students should absolutely not be taught to fear these tools tho I do agree they be tested in constrained environments to challenge them. Current systems should not be used to learn unless you have a clear understanding and are willing to check every word and check your reasoning. Future systems will be much better though so this problem isn’t going anywhere. \nIf anything there should be a push to make these ideas more interpretable to a younger audience and give them the tools to navigate an increasingly complex market of ideas. They should be aware of the limitations and how when they use a piece of software their actions and the actions of those around them are influencing what they see next. \nIt should be used and taught with rigor. \nIt’s programming 2.0", ">\n\nDude no; \nChatGPT is the computer. \nDo you want to be the education system that banned the computer and then wondered why all the other education systems output modern tech workers, while your education system kept outputting chimney sweeps and car factory workers?", ">\n\nHW only exists to make students practice, and generally is worth less than 20% of the grade in a class. If a student chooses to use chat GPT to bypass it then that’s the student’s loss.\nUltimately exams are what schools use to evaluate a students knowledge and I don’t think that’s going to change anytime soon", ">\n\nThere are already programs that check if something was written by an AI or not. Also no student I know actually uses chatGPT for major assignments because chatGPT doesn’t know every text to ever be published so it doesn’t understand the context, and most of the time will just bullshit an answer that’s incorrect.\nEveryone I know that uses chatGPT for school do so for either for assignments so small and simple that it doesn’t make sense to quarantine, or they use it as a more advanced google that can answer questions more accurately than a search engine could, essentially just saving time.\n(most) students are using chatGPT largely as a productivity and time management tool rather than to cheat.", ">\n\nThis is like saying “in the age of calculators, the only way to ensure kids learn maths is to ban calculators in school”. If looked at correctly, chatgpt is an effect multiplier, learning just has to be rejigged to have kids learn to do things that they can’t simply ask chatgpt to do for them.", ">\n\nLess course work and more exams is the future in a world with chatGPT.", ">\n\nChatGPT will be a big no issue soon. I work in a research field and this was something we worried about last year. As of now there are multiple tools and even more being developed that catch the use of ChatGPT. There has been research published that list ChatGPT as a co-author, but for most research, and use by students, it will simply be forbidden and will easily be caught as well. The program does well but it has a particular style that can be caught. Again it will be a non-issue soon.", ">\n\nThis is like forbidding people to use a calculator because it can give you the result instant. A better way is to teach them how to use the calculator, because its here now and won't go away. Same with GPT. Children can learn way better/faster with ChatGPD if used correctly. Imaging having a private teacher for free which helps you learning every time of the day.", ">\n\nLet me ask you this. If ChatGPT could complete a students whole assignment, what would that student have learned from doing that assignment on their own that won’t simply be replaced with ChatGPT by a employer in the future?\nEven if ChatGPT doesn’t replace workers for a decade, why teach students skills that will inevitably be replaced and leave said students jobless in a decade?\nChatGPT won’t only be used in the workforce either. Linus Tech Tips has a video showing how ChatGPT can help people learn new skills and do troubleshooting on their own. If I remember correctly, he manages to completely build a pc by only strictly following what ChatGPT tells him to. It even managed to suggest the best parts for that computers specific use case. It was nowhere near perfect, but in the future it will get there.\nSince ChatGPT is such a useful tool in the workforce and at home, I think it’s crucial we teach students how to use it instead of banning them from it. Maybe students should be given a problem and tasked to use ChatGPT to find the solution or have students attempt to learn a new topic with ChatGPT. I’m not a teacher, I just thought of those examples of the top of my head. I’m sure qualified teachers could think of better assignments than me.\nI could see ChatGPT helping a mechanic diagnose an issue so the mechanic could spend more time fixing the problem rather than diagnosing and I can think of a few examples in other jobs as well where ChatGPT will help a worker be more efficient and save more time.\nI think, if anything, we’re setting students up for failure by not teaching them about these tools that will take over the workforce and help in everyday life.", ">\n\nYou’ll still have to pass a test. Relax.", ">\n\nIt “fairs” extremely well? Maybe some additional time spent observing ChatGPT could actually benefit some", ">\n\nThere’s just no way you can use ChatGPT to do all of your work for you and be successful at any moderately high level of academic pursuit. Not without learning the material yourself, and if you’ve done that, I don’t think it matters so much whether you used chatGPT and for what along the way.\nFrankly if you start our using chatGPT early in school, you won’t even be able to ask the right questions in the right way and include the necessary refinements to do more complex and demanding assignments down the road. \nAlso, tests are still a thing aren’t they? ChatGPT doesn’t help you perform in person in a monitored environment - not in a way that would allow you to skip learning the material. I don’t really get this aspect of your cmv. As long as tests don’t allow access to ChatGPT, anyone who didn’t learn the material is going to be exposed..", ">\n\nThere are already programs that detect ChatGPT writing.", ">\n\nThe children who want to cheat will always find a way to do so. It doesn’t matter how much you do to restrict it, it’ll just make them find new means of doing so. \nSource: I did GCSE’s in the UK, AP in the US. Trust, kids will cheat even in sterile environments. Especially if it’s a huge room and there are few moderators. A lot of us are scared of repercussions but those who aren’t won’t let anything stand in there way—region and proctoring be damned.", ">\n\nI require them to complete an outline first. Outline must be submitted to me before I take the essay. Google doc lets you see that they write it and when each sentence was written. It’s helped.", ">\n\nCHATGPT is a tool, and in some applications (not all), it can help students do their homework. Consider the calculator. Do students not need to learn formulas and critical thinking just because they can punch numbers into calculators?\nNo, math is still a skill that is valuable if for no other reason then because it trains your brain to solve problems.\nOne of the things that surprises me is that ChatGPT can use words and explain things to students even when a teacher is not available or when there isn’t one. we should consider this an educational opportunity rather than a disadvantage.\nThere are so many amazing things we humans can do when we simply have tools to help us. ChatGPT is no different.", ">\n\nYou can’t force people to live in the past. Chat GPT is here to stay. Education now needs to focus on teaching people how to use AI, and how to develop a skill that can’t be replaced by AI.", ">\n\nHow about getting students engaged in what they’re learning and excited to learn. Find what they’re good at and double down on it. Don’t make school a fucking quarantine bubble. Socialize, allow them to teach and learn from each other. Replace the potential for cheating with collaboration assignments in person. “Children will cheat if given the opportunity” is such horse shit. If somebody doesn’t know or wasn’t taught something well then yea they’re gonna look to get it right so they can obtain approval. How about teaching them so they won’t cheat??", ">\n\nThats not it. I don’t have an answer for you, but thats not it.", ">\n\nHow about just have the kids do a presentation on \"their\" report with Q&A at the end. They'll have no choice but to know the info.... which is the point.", ">\n\nWell, making an AI that detects if something was made by an AI shouldnt be hard", ">\n\nI wonder if anyone has tried training a machine to look at assignments and give a confidence interval of the assignment being either human or machine in origin.", ">\n\nYeah we call that stuff examns...", ">\n\nThe problem with your suggested approach is that it just reinforces the current failures of the education system. It doesn't actually teach us the skills that you will be able to use in the field. \n\nYou can look up formulas for physics and you can double check online for any coding questions. Chat gpt is a tool and I think forbidding students from using it will just be a disservice to them and everyone in the future. It's not going to go away any time soon so how about instead of teaching children to cheat more effectively, we teach them how to use chat gpt to its full potential? It can speed up so many tasks to such a degree that students will be able to recieve more advanced education in the time that was saved by using chat gpt", ">\n\nI mean, there are plenty of good reasons already said, but wouldn't it just be easy to cheat. You get home, ask Chat.gpt for a result, print it out. Bring it with you to the school quarantine, copy it into the computer. (Unless you would like a full strip search of the students upon entering, which is wrong in so many ways)", ">\n\nI could use this in my program all I wanted and pass courses with perfect scores, and at the end of my degree I’d have a licensure exam that I’d fail cause I didn’t learn anything.", ">\n\nGreat idea! While let's just ignore the real world and keep our heads in the sand. Let's also get rid of computers and ink pens and go back to stone and chisel!", ">\n\nInstead of asking students to write ...ask them to spot the mistakes and correct the essays.\nThat requires way more knowledge and mastership.", ">\n\nI feel like this is a modern day equivalent to saying that now that the internet is available at the family computer, students must complete their work entirely under supervision.\nAI is here and more that is better is coming and people need to learn how to integrate with it rather than fight it. It's going to take some jobs. Just like the cotton gin and steam drill took work from people who then immediately transitioned to other work that the machine couldn't do and to running to machine itself. People will need to run ChatGPT. Feed it, verify its output, clean it up and submit the report based on CGPT4.0's write up. Individuals need to know the material, sure, but we can't really keep students off the internet and trying to do so just wastes resources and makes teachers pull their hair out.", ">\n\nI think the problem lies deeper. Humans and especially children want to learn and understand. One of the most common words a 5 y/o uses is \"why\". \"Why do airplanes fly? Why is the sun bright? Why can't I have candy? Why isn't the house collapsing? It is bigger than my sandcastle that fell over.\" And the education system should be ashamed of itself that it kills this curiosity and motivation of the children. I don't want to go too deep into possible solutions. Just one anecdote from myself:\nWe had to produce an educational video. For that we got 20 hours time. We worked around 30, met at my apartment and filmed after a day off homeschooling. Nobody thought of cheating with chatgpt because we have the script our character. On the other hand: I should colour a heart now and I don't want to, so I don't do it.\nEveryone has their video and colouring schematics and we should encourage the prior to the latter, making the demand for cheating less important \nAlso we sent around our homeworks all the time. The concept of homework isn't great at all", ">\n\nHomeschool. Problem solved.", ">\n\nSorry, u/Own-Listen1552 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nHow is ChatGPT different than what Math teachers had to go through when calculators become a thing?\nAt first, they banned them \"because the students have to learn the material!\" \nStudents rebelled because \"We'll always have a calculator available.\"\nEventually, teachers relented and now allow calculators in the class.\nDo you see the trajectory of ChatGPT going any different?\nAs for ChatGPT improving, if everybody is using it then it won't be able to improve because the only new input will just be reinforcing feedback from its own work.\nAs for children cheating, how is using ChatGPT different than any other sort of plagiarism detection that teachers already have to deal with? Also, the makers of ChatGPT also provide a tool that will tell you if a particular work product was produced by it. Isn't that good enough of a deterrent?\nAir gapping the kids from legitimate research material seems to be a bit extreme to me.", ">\n\nWhen I was young, calculators weren't allowed. Later, we were allowed to use them, but only on some tests.\nPersonally, I thought that was stupid. It's like training a carpenter, but not allowing power tools.\nAI is here to stay. Teach them how to use that useful tool to maximum effect, instead of teaching a work method which will likely be obsolete within five years.", ">\n\nHow bout not putting children in a prison for 8 hours, but teach them how to learn and getting them interested and motivated for school. My biggest problem in School was how boring most of the teachers taught the material. Maybe dont let every random highly educated person be a teacher if they cant work with kids. When i had the right teacher he sort of started my hunger for knowledge about the themes he was teaching. Plus kids and teenagers hate doing what theyre told to do so i dont think that is a solution at all." ]
> My moms a parent for middle schoolers, she says it's happened already a lot this semester, but the thing is, most can tell just from the sentence structure and fluidity, sometimes they are just still wrong answers or definitely not the answer they needed.	[ "/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^\| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.", ">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?", ">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.", ">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?", ">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.", ">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?", ">\n\nYou mean a grade?", ">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication", ">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.", ">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)", ">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.", ">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.", ">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.", ">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.", ">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?", ">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.", ">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.", ">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.", ">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.", ">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.", ">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.", ">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.", ">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.", ">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.", ">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.", ">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.", ">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.", ">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.", ">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use", ">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.", ">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.", ">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.", ">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.", ">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.", ">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.", ">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.", ">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).", ">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.", ">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.", ">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.", ">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.", ">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.", ">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.", ">\n\n\nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \n\nWhy? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it. \n\nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \n\nWhy? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? \nLet's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project. \n\nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.\n\nTotally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator.", ">\n\nFor the most part, knowledge workers perform a given amount of work in a given amount of hours, and the number of them hired by a company is TotalHoursNeeded/NumHoursPerEmployee. E.g. if you have 100 manyears of work to get done in a typical year, you employ 100 people.\nChat GPT isn't going to \"replace\" people wholesale, because as you say someone still needs to supervise it. But it looks to be on track to increase the productivity of programmers (can write a first draft of code and finds many of the bugs instantly). \nSame for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones. \nSo now the TotalNeeded is decreased by some percentage, let's say 10% to start. Now you only need 90 human programmers to do that same work. With 25% efficiency gain, you need 75. With 50%, 50. Etc. \nOr take translation jobs. Today, an editor spends roughly 3 minutes per word editing machine translated text, and 1 minute per word editing human-translated text. As long as editors are more expensive per hour than first translation people, it still makes sense much of the time to hire translators, because the software isn't free. \nBut the graph of machine translation \"efficiency\" is trending towards taking the same amount of time to edit as a human translator. As soon as that's hit, there's literally no reason to hire human translators, only editors. \nAnd if the editing time goes down to 30 seconds/word because of further AI assistance to the editor, you only need half as many of those.", ">\n\nThere is currently two better solutions being worked on - one of which is already being used to some degree. \nThe first is ChatGPT developers themselves making moves to make AI written works to be identified by \"watermark\" or similar. I don't thi k this one has taken effect at all yet. \nAnother is by a separate dev team that allows teachers to use software to determine the amount of an essay, for example, that is written by AI what the likelihood of any one sentence or paragraph to have been written by AI. This allows the teachers to use discretion when determining if the student used the AI in a way that they find acceptable or not. This way instead kf running from the scary AI educators can actually utilize tyhe AI with students to help them develop their writing and other communications.", ">\n\nWhat about kids with transportation issues? When I was in school I knew kids that drove almost an hour each way to get there. I certainly couldn’t have asked my parents to drop everything to take me all the way to school so I could do my homework if I forgot. Bus schedules? Do you think schools want to waste more money by burning more gas for extra routes? I understand where you’re coming from, but for a fair amount of children—especially in poorer, more rural areas—that getting to school and back is such a delicate balancing act that such a thing would just punish them.", ">\n\nI've seen a few key things from academics testing out ChatGPT (I have not signed up myself):\n\nIt tends to produce confident, convincing nonsense. It doesn't actually understand what it's writing about, and I hear it shows.\nIt makes up citations. Real authors in the field, real journals... but made-up titles. Things like that, since, again, it doesn't actually understand citations.\n\nThis suggests that, for assignments requiring the demonstration of genuine, in-depth understanding, and not merely the ability to summarize facts, ChatGPT will fail.\nA similar example that you bring up in the comments is programming cheat sheets into calculators - but for well-designed engineering exams (including the licensure exams, at least in the US), cheat sheets are fine and often either allowed or provided. A well-designed exam tests the ability to apply principles, not knowledge of equations, so a cheat sheet is harmless, or even allows the exam to work better (since people aren't distracted with memorizing equations).", ">\n\nThere are three criticisms that I have of this approach. \n\n\nShould we not teach to the environment that we live in? Yes, education often imposes arbitrary constraints like time tests but for research and reports why not let people use and work around all resources? If you can work around chat gpt to work efficiently, then do it. You learn what it can and can’t do and how to use it effectively as a tool. \n\n\nCan chatGPT on it’s own actually write a good essay? From what I have seen it can pull together a few sources. It can generally write fluff based on other things that it has seen. But it struggles to write analysis. It can’t interrogate a source or make value judgements. It could be useful for doing some filler or providing ideas but if to do an actual report, I think it would be insufficient. \n\n\nAn assignment that can be done using chatgpt is probably boring. Here I am writing an essay for no reason other than I find it interesting to discuss this topic. Perhaps, we arent giving students interesting enough assignments or we are overloading them to the point that they don’t have the time to engage? If chatGPT turns out to be an issue maybe it’s more of an indictment of the structures and norms of education.", ">\n\n\n\nhomework in the form of essays, take home tests, coding assignments, would be completed on school grounds. \n\n\nCongratulations, you've invented the \"cram school\".\nI'd recommend reading through your post again and actually thinking about the things you've said. Because essentially, you're merely advocating for the wholesale elimination of homework and for education outside of that to remain totally unchanged. It's almost literally, \"Make the school day 30% longer\".\nMy solution to the \"problem\" of students potentially using ChatGPT to cheat on homework: I don't think you need a hilariously convoluted system of homework \"boiler rooms\" redolent of national security apparatus, that requires schools to adopt ruinously expensive and disruptive technological and administrative changes.\nIt would be sufficient if we institute a system whereby teachers are encouraged to, let's say... \"test\" their students, whether by regular written exams or by talking to them in what I'll call \"classes\", to ensure they understand the material they've been assigned to learn.\nThis method ensures that students cannot use AI homework bots to coast through classes (since they'll literally be found out the very next class), and has the added benefit of not adding three hours to every teacher's day.", ">\n\nWhat about pen and ink?", ">\n\narguably I can just copy a ChatGPT output by hand. So I think that is a first level measure, but not a complete solution.", ">\n\nIt's a better solution than prison just because the curriculum can't keep up with technology.\nWhen calculators arrived on everyone's phone and everyone's pocket did you advocate for the same solution? Unlikely, so why only now with this system?", ">\n\nWell I did and I was. When I was studying engineering in the 80s we routinely could not arrive at exams with a calculator. Even then calculators were programmable enough to allow students to write cheat sheets in calculator memory.\nIt forced us to memorize equations, principals of engineering, and independent thinking. I’m a better engineer because I did.", ">\n\nSo you're what, almost 60? And you think what's best for children is to be like you? Don't you think you may be a bit out of touch?\nAlso, your view was about K12 students, not engineering students.", ">\n\nNo. As I replied, leaning on tools as a crutch all your life will limit your ability and function as a human. For example, you could argue that basic math isn’t necessary. As matter of fact that was an argument years ago with the advent of calculators.\nHowever, humans should be able to exist and functions without a digital crutch. You should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator. You should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google. There are basic elements of duration necessary since we are all still wet grey matter.", ">\n\n\nYou should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator\n\nBut why?\n\nYou should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google\n\nAgain, why?\nWhere do you get your \"should\" from?\nI have basically all human knowledge in my hand, every equation or conversion I'll ever need day to day, even every language I'll likely ever encounter. Why shouldn't I leave my brain free to think about what it wants and to use my incredible resource as and when it's needed?\nDo you envision some Saw-like situation where you're locked to a wall and need to solve maths equations at pain of death?", ">\n\nThe less you use your brain the less likely your body is to maintain it. Our body functions through a use or lose it principle. Just look people who lose movement function/muscle just by being bedridden for a long time. Our brain is not different.\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.", ">\n\nIs wasting resources on process you can deletage outside not using your brain? You free up that space to put to what you decide is important.\n\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.\n\nThe weakest man with a gun can take out the strongest bodybuilder.", ">\n\nAnd if you decide Tik tok and Netflix are important? How do you think that will affect the cognitive ability of kids?\nI didn't mention strength nor physical strength. And even then the strongest man with a gun will probably take out the weakest man with a gun.(An actual fair comparison)", ">\n\nCouldn't chatgpt (or somesuch AI) be asked \"Hey - did you write this?\" and nip this sort of thing in the bud?", ">\n\nNo, Chat GPT doesn't remember everything it's said, the potential things it could say are huge and even if someone wrote something that Chat GPT might say, it could be a coincidence.", ">\n\nWell, strike that idea then.\nStill though - there must be some way to use AI to deal with this. \"set a thief to catch a thief\" and all that.", ">\n\nChat GPT (and most generative AIs) use GANs to generate content. \nIn laymen's terms (and extremely simplified as it's above my level of understanding) a GAN is 2 AI systems competing against each other, a creator AI that creates content and a checker AI that decides if the content was genuine or made by the other AI. \nSo any automated way to tell if it's AI generated can be built into the checker AI in future versions and the creator AI will learn to avoid whichever features the checker AI is spotting.", ">\n\nChatGPT is just another mechanism for reducing the need for labor, and it's not going away. \nChildren will need to be educated in both how to make effective use of it (for as long as it's not sufficient to completely eliminate mental labor), and also in the ethics of not using it. Always forcing them to write in airgapped places isn't going to do that, it just makes them resent it. \nAlso: essay writing on a scale needed to really learn long-form writing is not very amenable to doing in an airgapped classroom, because honestly we're not using dead-tree sources of information anymore already, so doing their research pretty much has to include doing it on line. \nBut really: laborious manual long-form essay writing is going to go the way of penmanship and looking things up in a library as an unneeded skill very quickly. We need children to adjust to that reality of the modern world rather than pretending it will go away. \nPeople are still needed (for now) to do the important part of writing essays without doing the laborious bit that ChatGPT automates anyway: deciding what to write, and editing it into a convincing and well-written form. \nForcing kids to spend a lot of time learning how to write the basic bulk part of essays is a lot like teaching them how to make buggy-whips in shop class: a pointless exercise. \nIt would be better to give them all prewritten ChatGPT essays and have them learn the limitations and capabilities.", ">\n\nIs ChatGPT really that much more effective than just grabbing things off Wikipedia? I was asking it things about elections and it was just Wikipedia from two years ago", ">\n\nThe answer is NEVER to limit technology. It’s to teach the new generation how to use that technology to achieve the same goal.\nIt’s pointless to ban computers and teach the memorization of dates in history class. It’s much more productive to teach online research skills so that if an individual needs to know the date of a particular moment in history, they can reliably Google it.\nChatGPT is the same. It renders writing essays as pointless, and it necessitates the teachers to adapt to new teaching styles, such as teaching the skills on how best to manipulate ChatGPT to return the information you need.", ">\n\nI was banned from using programming calculators when I studied engineering in the 80s during exams. It forced the students to all be on the same level playing field and forced us to actually know the equations, their applications, and the processes of whatever engineering course I was taking.\nIt made us better engineers.", ">\n\nHow does handicapping you make you a better engineer? If I put you and an engineer trained with technology in the same room together, who do you think would accomplish the task faster?", ">\n\nThe handicapped engineer, easily. The point of forcing students to actually learn the material is so that they understand how to reason about the underlying processes when they need to troubleshoot something going wrong, and understand the tradeoffs between approaches and how to select the best one for the task. \nOnce you understand things deeply you don't actually need training in doing things quickly because it's immediately intuitive how to apply a technological process to save time. The guy that leaned heavily on technology is basically fucked if he has to use a technique or software that he didn't specifically train on since he doesn't have a good foundation to abstract from. It would be more appropriate to call this person a technician.", ">\n\nThe purpose of calculators is to do the menial part of the work, not to solve whole processes. The engineer that learned with calculators likely knows how to select the right process to solve a problem, but uses the calculator to do the math faster and with fewer errors.", ">\n\nAt the college level, we’re not talking about tools to add and multiply. We’re talking about tools like Wolfram Alpha that do entire symbolic manipulations for you. If I took a calculus class and on all the assignments used Wolfram Alpha to find derivatives, do you think I would have learned anything?\nThat is what ChatGPT is doing for essays", ">\n\nThere are things called pencil and paper.", ">\n\nAs I said, this is the first line defense. However as I already commented to another user. I can simply hand copy ChatGPT output. Essentially not doing my own independent research, writing, coding, and studying.", ">\n\nWhy don't you consider that research? \nThe first source was the best. It's incredibly efficient research IMO.", ">\n\nThe idea of tool removal has always been flawed. From calculators to chat GPT and beyond. If your test is so flimsy that a simple tool invalidates it then the test is poorly built. Test shouldn't be simple busywork tasks, they should require thinking, problem solving, complex thought. If it's just a game of memorization that can be cheated by answers on a paper, you've built a bad test.\nover memorization (which is what our current school systems teach) is not only unhelpful, but also harmful. We live in an era of wikipedia being a reliable source, of vast access to tools both online and phsycial. We should be teaching kids they should do the work but with the help of those tools, not despite them.\nThe main issue with your argument is that based on what you've said, i can assume you think the current school system is a good one but so many studies have shown that at least here in the US, the school systems are some of the worst in the world. It's this memorize, ignore tools, singular focus mentality that plays such a big role.\nIf we were more creative with education, incorporating tool utilization into the learning process, we'd likely have a major improvement to our educational successes. I could go on about how the education system prefers certain kinds of students over others, and how many students are left behind simply because they don't learn like other kids and are therefore punished, but I won't. All I'll say is that more restrictions on how and what kids learn isn't going to help them learn more or better.\nand in 15 years when chat GPT is a part of daily life in every single company on the planet in some way or another (which I'm beyond certain it will be), kids who were taught how to properly utilize it will have just such a huge advantage in the workforce over those who weren't", ">\n\nRather than attempt to find ways to prevent new technology from interfering with existing pedagogy, shouldn't we review and revise pedagogy as new technology develops? \nIf a chat AI program can write these things, what is the point of having humans repeatedly do the same work? We don't expect people to use an abacus when doing math, or limit their research to what's in the library card catalogue, or require printed paper publications as essay resources; we adapted to the calculator, and to the internet and search engines. So too should we adapt to things like ChatGPT, not by trying to pretend it doesn't exist, but by finding ways to incorporate it into a more holistic approach to learning.\nRather than chain kids to an airgapped room on school grounds outside of school hours to do homework that's of dubious educational value in the first place, we should take this as an opportunity to refocus schooling on in-class engagement and direct instruction. ChatGPT and programs like it are showing us yet another thing we as humans can outsource to our technology, so why struggle to do things in a more difficult and inefficient way?", ">\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\nIn addition, AI is only as good as the data it is fed. You must still be able to do the work on your own to analyze when the AI is giving valid outputs (garbage in, garbage out). This is especially true, when AI runs the risks of being owned or operated by those with a specific agenda. Can you imagine the trouble that would result if people relied on AI to determine who to vote for, but someone was able to pay the operators to have the AI promote them?\nRelying on AI to do our work for us is a distillation of an appeal to authority fallacy on a large scale (if the AI says it, it must be true).", ">\n\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\n\nThis is something I worry about A LOT when it comes to AI. Our collective understanding of the subjects that we usually classify as \"the humanities\" is constantly evolving as we learn more, and especially as a more diverse set of people are allowed to study, research and put forth opinions and arguments.\nImagine if students were outsourcing all their history, psychology, sociology and philosophy homework to a chatbot with a 1950s understanding of those subjects.\nImagine doctors outsourcing psych patient diagnoses to a chatbot with the same understanding.\nOn an arguably less \"serious\" but still critically important moral and political topic, imagine if all/most videogame art was outsourced to an AI engine with a 1990s sensibility for female characters. Same for all kinds of representation and diversity.\nHow about politics and political science in general... ha!\nEtc, etc etc.\nIt is NOT the case that we already have discovered all the true answers to the big questions, and we can merely turn to a \"knowledge calculator\" like ChatGPT to spit out the truth.\nEven if AI can pretty accurately reflect the discourse of the day, as it is currently understood and accepted, our collective knowledge and culture will stagnate if we do not actively participate in developing it, and we will all pay the price for that.", ">\n\nThese are all moralistic arguments that ultimately don’t mean anything.", ">\n\nI would say they are more epistemic arguments, which do matter greatly in the context of education (which is what the op was referring to).", ">\n\nAre any of these things mentioned actually realistic concerns? Someone is going to train an AI bot to generate 90s female art characters with big tits?\nNo. Lol and even if someone did, who cares?", ">\n\nConsidering how many people believe obviously fake stories that have no supporting evidence (and in spite of contrary evidence), yes, I believe they are very real concerns.\nIf an AI says we should use Brawndo in farming because its got what plants crave (electrolytes), we should probably be able to justify it with reasoning beyond \"the AI says so.\"", ">\n\nWho is suggesting we do anything “just because an AI said so”? \nDo you read books and think everything in it is true “because the book says so”?", ">\n\nHow do you determine if what the book/ai said is false?\nYou would typically do it through a process of research and discovery.\nPeoples' ability to do research and discovery will be greatly diminished if we rely on AI to do those things for us (which is what the previous posters were suggesting).\nTherefore, reliance on AI will lead to us losing the ability to discern if the results of what the AI is saying is correct.", ">\n\nWhat? Lol that doesn’t make any sense at all. \nIt is not like if we use AI then all previous knowledge is simply forgotten or lost. It’s all still there.", ">\n\nForcing homework at school makes that \"not homework\", and this approach has never worked. You cant reject change, it never works. Every time there has been a game changing event, people adapted. Those who tried to reject change disappeared. Horse carriages disappeared from roads because something else replaced it. Some people supposedly rejected progress, but they are lying to themselves, they still use modern tech or services at some point.\nAnyway, the change is here, and it made essays irrelevant. Time to find another way to test people skills. \nGive it a little time though. ChatGPT costs a ginormous amount of money to run and will not stay free for long either.", ">\n\nIt's not just ChatGPT, the actual innovation is not the interface but lies in algorithms that can recreate natural language of similar quality with smaller data samples. There are also OpenSource datasets like ThePile, etc. so even if OpenAI moves to a paid model (and they will, quickly. You can already sign up to be first in line for the API), there will be other free providers.", ">\n\nHaving coded AIs, I disagree. ChatGPT is a regular trained AI. The novelty is the scale of the operation, and the fact there is a public API.\nNo one ever spent that much money on resources to run and train an AI publicly. I am pretty sure google has done something similar with user data sets to make their search engine and general ecosystem.\nI wish there was a way to have algorithms working with smaller data sets and produce similar results, but it kind of does not work that way.", ">\n\nThere are already tools to identify ChatGPT generated texts. Such tools will improve as another use of literally the same technology.\nJust as teachers submit essays for identifying plagiarism, teachers will submit essays for identifying AI-generated text. \nFurther, a focus could change from grading students on what they know to grading students' ability to ask meaningful, content-based questions about the subject. After all, knowing facts isn't particularly valuable as a skill. Integrating facts and discovering valuable questions is still something that remains a uniquely human skill. And is where people will continue to add value as AI becomes more advanced.", ">\n\nStudents have always been able to 'cheat' on work done outside the classroom, by copying or somehow getting others to do their work for them, even before the internet. Yes with more advanced modern technology it is easier but this has always been a concern. \nAs regular learning environments like supervised classrooms are already 'quarantined' in the way you descibe you are fundementally just suggesting an increase in learning hours as a supplement to homework. This has been suggested by many for various reasons but it would overall cuase more issues than it fixes. It increases work load on teachers and administrators, stretching already thin educational budgets, and forces increased mental strain on children. It would limit their ability to do other recreational and out of ciriculum activities. This would be disruptive and controlling when the quantity of teaching and learning time that children recive is already considered sufficiant for a good education.", ">\n\nHell the only thing stopping me from using ChatGPT regularly for my work now is that it's always at capacity.", ">\n\nApply tests that are hand written, doesnt matter how a person obtains the knowledge, actually learning the subject is most important thing.", ">\n\nThere is no amount of ChatGPT that could influence a good old oral exam where the teacher evaluates the understanding via a little chat.", ">\n\nSo tired of this view. We shouldn’t be fighting technology. Teach kids to use the resources they have to find answers. It’s such a waste of 12 years of school, teaching kids to memorize facts and follow rules. \nInstead, every test should be open book and reward the best answers. Ask the kids to show their work or explain their thought process so we reward understanding of a topic rather than memorization of steps or text.", ">\n\n20 years ago, there were already homework communities and learn groups. Even from the publishers of school books and with free access to tutors. Ok, they didnt do the final homework for me, but gave me a great starting point.\nBeing the kid who transcribes a wiki page was already stupid back then when others could call you out:\nBut I guess the actual problem is lack of digital literacy with teachers, they're always 5-10 years behind.", ">\n\nIf you are testing skills that can be done by free tools on the internet, then you are testing irrelevant skills.\nThe best way to educate kids is to test for skills they need, not skills they objectively don't.\nI was able to witness a couple of universities adapt to tests during quarantine, and follow reports on how the new methods would be used going forward.\nThe results where thus:\nMass offline testing is incredibly cost efficient (one examiner per ~300 students), but the tests results are a poor indicator of real world performance.\nOne to One testing is incredibly expensive, but can, when done right, test actual understanding and performance.\nBoth will be useful, of course. Mass testing is most useful when used in a way that students aren't incentivized to cheat, such as when framed as practice.", ">\n\nOne of the upsides of needing to prevent this kind of tech from cheating assignments is that teachers should focus on having students be able to do their homework at school. (As a former teacher, we were trying to do this already- no more than 15 min of homework per class). \nI dont think we need to do quite what you say. We just need to limit outside electronics and have in-person classrooms or computer labs with programs designed to be AI-proof. \nI have ALWAYS believed that cell phones/internet watches should be stored in school lockers (at most) and never allowed anywhere else on campus during the school day. If anyone needs to contact the students they contact the desk who relays their message/other need. Many schools already do this.", ">\n\n∆\nI agree with this. It would help.", ">\n\nThank you!", ">\n\nThat is utterly pointless.\nThere is no reason to limit the available tools.\nThis just reminds me of the entire \"you won't have a calculator wherever you go\" argument.\nSchool should instead put a focus on responsibly using available tools.", ">\n\nAnd if students choose to use them irresponsibly, what should schools do?\nAnd can you please define what constitutes responsible use? Because despite knowing about plagiarism, people still copy and paste from the internet. Perfect abstinence is easier than perfect moderation after all.", ">\n\nJust return to hand written essays and have more oral exams.", ">\n\n∆l\nActually of all comments having oral exams compliments my post and I agree with you. Enjoy the delta.", ">\n\nIn a Faraday cage.", ">\n\nIf children can just generate work with ChatGPT, it simply shows that children are not being taught anything valuable. (Once ChatGPT responses can be generated in almost unlimited amounts at very low cost, it necessarily means those responses are of low value)\nInstead shouldn't we be teaching children to provide more valuable outcomes that ChatGPT can't replicate?", ">\n\nBeing able to do on your own what ChatGPT does with access to an immense amount of data and processing power is valuable. The actual writing isn't valuable, obviously, but it would be silly to expect it to be. It's just a side effect of practice, you spend time making things of little or no value to build up the skills you'll need to make something that actually matters. That's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\nI think you'd be hard pressed to teach a class of children to outperform ChatGPT in writing without ever asking them to write something that could also be done via AI. What would that even look like?", ">\n\n\nThat's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\n\nIt is a problem. That is why I hated math class until 2nd year of university.", ">\n\nDid you start discovering novel math results in your second year of university, or was that just the point at which you first encountered problems you found interesting, despite the fact that someone else had already solved them before? Thinking back the class you didn't hate, do you think it should be removed if someone can construct an AI to give all the answers you gave?", ">\n\nThis is only a method for evaluating students, it doesn't do anything to educate them.\nChatgpt is potentially a great tool for education but trying to find complex ways around it for homework is pointless. When testing fact retention is required using school/university computers with no web browsing makes sense. For any other test or situation it's a tool that might be used.", ">\n\nI understand OPs concern. That said, I do not think you can create true quarantine for a multitude of reasons. \nThe biggest one is probably time. I worked through high school and university. Because I lived in the middle of nowhere it was about a 30 min drive to high school and then an hour to uni. Having to stay at these quarantine zones to complete assignments would have been hell on my schedule, car, and wallet. \nYou said it yourself, if someone is going to cheat, they will cheat. If I had to do the work in a quarantine zone, what exactly stops me from doing the actual work on my computer at home, printing it all out, and then just writing that into the computer at the quarantine zone? Unless you want to try having students write an entire essay in their hour long class? There has to be a point where they go home and then this falls apart.", ">\n\nThere are already lots of ways to cheat in homework and mostly our steps to deal with that amount to the honour system, and by university level, automated plagiarism detection (which can be quite easily avoided). The point you \"won't argue\" that people will cheat if given the opportunity is probably the actual crux of what's wrong with your suggestion and the part that needs a big [citation needed]. Concluding that the majority of people are fundamentally dishonest is a big assumption to handwave away. \nIf you want an education, cheating is stupid. Ultimately you might get a paper qualification out of it but you'll have actually learned nothing - you won't hold up long against someone who has done it properly when you actually have to apply the skills. Or if you do, then the assignments weren't that crucial to the learning in the first place.", ">\n\nMany of the things I learned in school were largely irrelevant. I couldn't use a calculator to do long division. After I passed those early elementary school years I never did long division again. I wouldn't even argue learning the long division algo is mandatory. It's nice to have learnt it I guess, but I spent way too many hours on it. I can see learning fundamentals of essay writing, etc, are great, but why can't we just evolve to learn more effective things in life? ChatGPT should be used as a tool, not viewed as a detriment.", ">\n\nIt'd suggest that the best way to educate them is to embrace ChatGBT and teach them to use it well. Your method is a bit like teaching kids to do math without calculators or accounting without excel or financial software. There is some value, but it runs out very quickly and you're at a social and competetive disadvantage for taking some archane principled approach to education that is more of a defense of \"how we used to do it\".\nI'm old enough to remember when using a word processor was sometime forbidden for reasons of fairness - that seems entirely disconnected now from doing good work and it's almost hard to envision the thought process of those who thought everything should be hand written for students. \nIsn't the kid who is amazing at utilizing tools like ChatGBT going to do much better in the world than the one who does not? Your idea of \"proper education\" would easily regress back to needing to do all subjects scrawled in dirt with sticks and grunted in non-standardized language.", ">\n\nOR, chatgpt will be a great boon to the entire education system:\nIncreased accessibility: ChatGPT and other AI-powered systems can provide education to individuals who otherwise would not have access to it, due to geographical, financial, or other barriers.\n\nPersonalized learning: ChatGPT can provide personalized education experiences based on each student's strengths, weaknesses, and learning style.\n\n24/7 availability: ChatGPT can operate 24/7, providing students with access to education at any time, anywhere, which can be especially beneficial for those with demanding schedules or for individuals in remote areas.\n\nScalability: ChatGPT can provide education to a large number of students simultaneously, which could help to address the shortage of teachers and resources in some areas.\n\nCost-effectiveness: ChatGPT can be a more cost-effective option for providing education compared to traditional methods, as it does not require physical classrooms or teachers.\n\nImproved student engagement: ChatGPT can provide interactive, engaging learning experiences that can hold students' attention and foster deeper learning.\n\n--Source: ChatGPT", ">\n\nThere a lots of places where texts and exams are “open book”. The questions have to be written differently, and the point is that you’re not testing someone’s ability to memorize, but rather their ability to understand. This is a more difficult test to write, so in theory AI could force education to improve since everyone would a virtual tutor with them at all times.", ">\n\nI'm a teacher and I've been thinking a lot about this the last couple months. Changes within the education system/curriculum/syllabus/retraining of teachers will take far too long to keep up with the ease of access to, and success of, chatgpt and AI in general. \nThe only solution moving forward both short and long term is to embrace it, there is no stopping it now anyway and if we don't all want to be out of a job in 5 years we need to - \n- demonstrate feasible/moral/ethical use of such tools\n- create more opportunities for collaborative learning/hands-on/problem solving tasks and ones that increase communication skills between peers. \nHow this applies to each individual, specific task will vary and must require a lot of creativity and trial and error, but I think relying too heavily on your department of education to handle this (or most 'boots on the ground' problems) will ultimately only degrade a students experience and ability for learning.", ">\n\nI'm with you on what you're trying to accomplish. I just don't know that it's the \"best\" way. \nFor instance, how is homework performed in school superior to trusting the kids to learn the material, which would then be tested by oral exam? And yes, I do believe that asking a student to verbally explain a topic is a really good way to gauge mastery.", ">\n\nThere is not a hope in hell that we'll go back to hand written stuff. That's not how technology works. As the music companies. There are better ways to show you know a subject, for sure, than the current out of-date ones. That's for sure. Have you ever taken an on-line exam?", ">\n\nI argue to let them use chatGPT as it will be their future. This is similar to my generations \"you'll never walk around with a calculator so learn math.\" The future children will grow into a society where work means utilizing AI tech to help them thrive. If chatGPT helps them write an essay, and it's good, it means they're using resources. I agree, however, that we should supplement this with actual reading and writing.", ">\n\nI would argue that most of time that ChatGPT and similar technologies is going to be an issue is in 8-12 grade and college.\nThis technology is not going away, and it's only going to improve. Personally I would treat it like calculators, audio books and spell check.\nTech kids how to use the technology properly. Sure it's somewhat handy to calculate numbers in your head, but having the ability to do math in your head does not give you much of an advantage in today's world and not being able to doesn't hurt you much. But it's still critical to know formulas and how to peace together algebraic statements and word problems. \nKnowing how to spell properly is less important than knowing proper word usage - most times you're writing something it can be spell-checked in real time. Sure it's \"terrible that today's kids...\" don't know how to spell... but it's not going to affect their career. \nEnter ChatGPT - same thing. Should I spend the time to write a white paper on the changing advertising landscape to alert my boss about the a potential seismic shift in advertising revenue, or should I ask ChatGPT to write it? As a user I have to understand its limits and potential copywrite issues, but even more importantly how to verify that what it writes is correct and targeting the right audience. Is data from before 2020 going to be recent and accurate enough for my thesis? How do I supplement the discussion with real-world data? \nThis is our new reality. We should be learning how to use the tools properly, not trying to figure out to lock it down (which frankly makes as much sense as locking down the use of calculators or spell check).", ">\n\nI think there are already apps in place that are able to detect AI generated text (Read this article).\nAlso, I think a better method would be to simply have a database of ChatGPT (could be encrypted) generated text and make it available to already existing software that is use to detect plagiarism (this is just an exemple amongst many)", ">\n\nFrankly I don’t think high schoolers and below should be given homework or tests at all. One learns magnitudes better through exploration as opposed to mindless repetition. Engage with these kids intellectually, make them free thinking Athenians, not bags of knowledge of which they have no idea how to use.\nDoes it not surprise anyone that we train people for over a decade in intellect yet hardly have any intellectuals?", ">\n\nI would argue that society would be better off spending resources on teaching children how to use this tool effectively. Knowing how to get the right answer is what matters in this world.", ">\n\nThen answer this: Well why learn math at all? Seriously.\nWhy learn he concept of subtraction let alone division? I could and society has argued that with the advent of digital calculators. \nYet we learn it. \nLater we use calculators to take the mundane and already known processes to the next level. We abstract away the mundane. \nAs a EE having worked and am working on products you may be using right now to read this, when I develop new silicon and chips I don’t break out Karnaugh maps and lay down circuit using a T square and stencils of gates. But I sure the hell know what I’m doing and expect the tools to do for me. \nTeaching fundamentals of reading, writing, arithmetic, essays, research are just that fundamental.", ">\n\nI’d argue that the vast majority don’t need anything beyond basic math anyways. \nGo ask the average adult if they know the quadratic equation and what it means and you’d probably be disappointed.", ">\n\nChatGPT is here to stay, you'd better advocate for teaching people how to make the most of it and use it wisely instead of pretending it doesn't exist.\nOne of my favourite teachers always told students to use the best tools there are.", ">\n\nI think it depends completely on the topic. In my field of study, it’s fairly easy to come up with term paper assignments that the bot would be useless for. \nLooking back at the paper I wrote last year, I don’t see how any current bot could have helped, as it isn’t able to read or summarize specific sources (yet?).\nAn example of the type of assignments we get is “Discuss the role of state capacity in x and x conflict in light of (specific research paper)‘s dimensions of state capacity - do your findings confirm the findings of (authors), why or why not?\nThis way of combining literature made it difficult even for me to be on top of it, as there were no sources that had attempted this exact combination - it has to be original. \nAlso, I find it’s the best way to learn, because you have to rely on your own judgement and there are no shortcuts, even asking the professor was unhelpful as he wasn’t too familiar with the details.", ">\n\nThis is not the best way.", ">\n\n\nThese homework rooms would have Internet connected computers for use but access to ChatGPT would be filtered and blocked.\n\nThis wouldn't be feasible, there's far too many roundabout ways to still access ChatGPT. Security measures like domain filtering are just unproductive games of whack-a-mole. \nEdit: removed all the other stuff I wrote, as those points have already been mentioned in previous top-level comments.", ">\n\nHomework shouldn’t be the go-to method of “education” to begin with. Imo Universities should focus on the integral part of education: the lectures. Tools like chatgpt can help student who are actually interested in a subject to learn more easily about it, but whether students actually learn anything or not from a class won’t change regardless of if work is authentic or copied from an AI\nSource: I’m a college student and have had experience in both supervised environments where we had to do work without the use of computers/phones and solely-online environments where many students cheated", ">\n\nWhile this could work, it is not necessarily the best way in terms of accessibility and of learning in general. \nFirst, students with ADHD and certain other conditions may not necessarily be the able to be productive at all times, or at the specific time they have to work on those computers, especially if those computers are not in an environment ideal to that specific person. It would also not be very feasible to give students enough time on these computers to complete the bigger assignments and essays. \nSecond, while ChatGPT is quite advanced, it simply works by looking at language patterns and often gets factual details incorrect. For example, with bigger coding problems, it tries to import modules that do not exist or call on functions that it has not defined. In literature, it cannot analyze texts on much more than a surface level. I will admit it can use secondary sources for textual analysis, however, it is unable to come up with a clear thesis on its own. \nAdditionally, take-home tests can be just as easily cheated on using a normal Google search, and usually test thinking skills rather than understanding and knowledge. \nFinally, essay-writing and other types of assignments are generally not ideal for learning as they are only one type of skill, and university professors are recognizing this. Not only do they not work for all learning styles, but they are only used so commonly because of tradition. University professors are structuring assignments around ways that are innovative enough that ChatGPT is unable to work on them. Along with requiring specific readings which the AI might not have access to, and citing of all sources (which has always been a requirement that the AI might trip up on), they are also going away from the traditional essay format into others. For example, I am studying literature, a relatively essay-heavy field, and in my past few courses I have been asked to analyze comics (which the AI cannot read), edit other people’s essays and articles (from past courses), create a mock syllabus or lesson plan with justifications for each reading, and create annotated bibliographies as a stepping stone to an essay. All of these not only require different skills and encourage different types of learning and research but are quite difficult for an AI to do. \nAll in all, while your suggestion is great, the very nature of the AI and the fact that it exists at all is perhaps a sign that the best course of action is to rework the way we think about evaluation. After all, if an evaluation is such that an AI can complete it without the ability to actually think (it works by using observed language patterns), then perhaps the evaluation is not ideal.", ">\n\nI bet teachers and people thought the same thing about calculators when they came out or 1990s internet. AI bots like chat GPT are just a tool.", ">\n\nAll this effectively does is train kids to accomplish goals of a type that do not exist in the real world in a situation they will never realistically encounter. A better goal is adjusting testing criteria to account for this.\nThere might be very specific sets of knowledge for which rote memorization is appropriate, and for those, the air gapped testing may be appropriate. But I believe those are the exception rather than the rule. By and large, teaching kids to effectively utilize the tools that will be available to them is what we should be doing.", ">\n\nImagine learning where the only books are hand written.\nThe printing press took out a huge amount of repetitive labor in the learning process.\nAI/ChatGPT stands a good chance of removing a huge amount knowledge labor which stands between an idea and the end product. Learning to use the AI to best effect the Idea->End Product Chain is more important than worrying about memorizing formulae we will likely never need to remember. \nThe effort to restrict ChatGPT is just education system worrying about their Cheese Being Moved.", ">\n\nThis just doesn't make any sense to me. You're arguing that we shouldn't allow students to use tools they would have at their disposal in a real working environment, and for what? Why wouldn't you want students to use every tool at their disposal? How exactly is handicapping them helping them to understand the coursework?\nA much better approach would be to fundamentally alter how we teach to better prepare them for the workforce. Encouraging collaboration and creative problem solving skills is much more practical and effective.", ">\n\nChatGPT may pass the Bar, but I highly doubt it will replace lawyers or other professionals. \nThe whole point of credentialing is to drive accountability. Anyone can study the law and cite precedent without a law degree. Actually representing a client in a court of law requires oversight and knowledge. ChatGPT isn't perfect - it will make mistakes from time to time. So who is responsible when it makes a mistake? When is a client (who is not familiar with the law) supposed to know that a mistake has been made on their behalf? For this reason, until ChatGPT is literally perfect you're always going to need a credentialed professional to review the output.\nFor the record, I think ChatGPT is wonderful. But it's a tool that people will use, not a full-fledged replacement for professionals. My employer (a Fortune 500 company) has already rejected its use for internal projects. IT has the website blocked.", ">\n\nThe kids that are educated without its use will fall behind in business when faced with kids that are using it to its fullest extent.\nYou've successfully made an argument for people to succeed in a test that is worthless in the real world. Its parameters don't match.", ">\n\nThe best way to educate children is to teach them skills and strategies that will actually serve them in the workplace of the future. \nChatGPT already has reached the point of replacing humans (See Buzzfeed news). If ChatGPT can take the test or do the homework then what value is that education going to be to these students? Especially older students will quickly see rote memorization as a waste of time and so yes they probably will cheat if they have the opportunity. Trying to force these things to be “learned” and prove that knowledge by brute force banning things is going to be a costly uphill battle.", ">\n\nWhat if we modify how essays are written by students, by asking them to include citations (which is something ChatGPT can’t do)?\nWe can’t stop new tools from making old methods obsolete. But we can focus on enhancing critical thinking of students in a stepwise manner. When a new tool is created, think about how you can adapt rather than resist it.", ">\n\nWhy not just train an ai to spot ai written papers?", ">\n\nWhat about gradually putting more emphasis on oral assignments?", ">\n\nEverything you said makes perfect sense...IF the goal was to teach children simply how to write the perfect standard essay. But that is a very limited way of viewing education and what its real goal is. The real goal of education is to teach children how to think. To come up with the right questions, not just the right answers. In a world where a \"good enough\" essay on literally anything can be conjured as if by magic by a machine, what's the actual value of that exercise now? For a very long time teachers have used the essay as a way to evaluate how a person thinks. Now that a machine can write it for you, we need new ways to evaluate how students think. That's the real task we are facing. Fuck the essay, just like we ditched the slide rule for calculators and later computers, etc. Tools change but the real game remains the same: Think for yourself!", ">\n\nI'd say the best way would be to accept the reality of changing technology and reevaluating the approach we have towards education as a whole.\nGranted, I'd say that's only one half of the picture: reassessing how we conceive if jobs and labour in the face of increasing automation goes along with that, and I think neither really works without the other.\nBottom line is that human labour is more and more obsolete as time goes on, so human jobs will be less and less in demand (I'd argue moving away from a capitalistic system is the right call, but even if you don't, automation is still an incentive).\nSince a large part of the incentive of our current education system is \"prepare you for a job\" I think the whole thing is going to fall short in light of these kinds of systems developing.\nTheres lots of people now who pursue knowledge as a project of passion, rather than a means to an end, and I think moving to a system that supports and encourages that kind of ambition is the way to go.", ">\n\nI disagree. We should learn to use the tools we have efficiently. Otherwise you are not learning for your career but for some professors ego", ">\n\nThat’s not “education in the era of ChatGPT.” That’s education in the era before ChatGPT while we figure out what the world with ChatGPT will look like so we have some idea of what to do with it.\nThat’s also not “educating,” that’s just “assessment.” Assessment is simply a measuring system for education. As long as you think of the acquisition of knowledge and skill as requiring knowledge regurgitation and skill performance in isolation and divorced from context/individualized, then you’re going to end up at necessitating a kind of geofenced, Luddite assessment model. The training itself predicates the assessment method. How we assess is defined by how we teach, and vice versa.\nThe best assessment method to gauge understanding is, and always has been, conversation.\nAll we need to do is pair assessment with regular conversation between qualified teacher and student to determine if personal comprehension is present. Not an interview, not an interrogation — conversation. Problem solving performance contexts are also great revealer of internalized knowledge and skill.\nChatGPT is a relative nonissue if your approach to assessment is at all human.\nIt’s only a problem when you’re trying to mechanize and dehumanized education. “Rigorous” does not mean “mechanical.” We are going to have to trust the professional, knowledge- and skill-assessing judgements of humans who already know and can do.\nEducation reverts to having more emphasis on apprenticeship and mentorship models, where the relationship itself is part of the learning process. \n(The “accountability!” cranks are gonna love that…)", ">\n\nI have a strong suspicion that discussions like this, while very interesting, will be obsolete long before any changes can actually be implemented in schools. In fact, I'm pretty sure schools will be gone entirely in the near future.\nAs of right now, you can be taught almost any subject by an exceptionally well-spoken, fast and infinitely patient teacher called GPT to a university level, if not higher. Try it right now - go ask GPT to explain the political situation that allowed Alexander the Great to conquer Persia, or ask it to explain the raytracing algorithm. If there's a part you don't understand, ask it to clarify. You'll be amazed how accessible it makes advanced topics.\nNow, how long before we have VR software with a realistic-looking AI teacher, with an AI-generated voice, who can do the same thing, but respond to students' voices and use body language and visual demonstrations? Five years?\nHow long after that before this tech is cheap, and of such high quality that sending your kids to school will be a worse education?\nNow in, say, 20 years, we could have an AI system that takes a DNA sample, analyses a students genotype to understand what subjects they will be naturally good at, what education approaches will be most successful, and continuously improves its model of the student's behavior by observing them. It crafts a decades-long education journey tailored to the individual, and accompanies them the entire way.\nTeachers, as far as they've existed so far, don't have a chance.", ">\n\nAre you trying to test someone or teach them?\nIf the latter, why do you care about cheating? This reminds me of the ol' teachers who used to restrict calculators because \"you won't always have a calculator with you.\"", ">\n\nYou forget that for 99% of homework students could just copy each other's work. Having the answers out in the world accessible is not a new problem. You just make homework a small part of the grades and you make sure students understand it's important to actually do it or they won't do well on the tests.", ">\n\nThere are so many people that can’t do the basic math examples you mentioned somewhere and they went to school at a time when there were no calculators.\nOn the other hand I was allowed to use calculators in school pretty much the moment I left elementary school and I am really quite good at math even without assistance.\nTool usage is one of humanities key features and trying to work against it instead of finding ways to incorporate new technology into school and life seems backwards.", ">\n\nIronically the teacher will have to use an AI to decipher the \"hand written\" assignments.", ">\n\nYou can't force people to learn.", ">\n\nWhat about teaching how to think rather than how to memorize? Just a thought 💭", ">\n\nThey need to get rid of homework, and have students do their work while they're at school. It's awful, they just pile it on, even if a class only has a little homework that day, there's like 6 or 7 classes so it's a nightmare for students. Seems like the only way to prevent cheating is have them do work in class, so I hope for the students sake, they do that.", ">\n\nI’ll throw my idea into the ring, though we’re still a few years off from this technology:\nWe should have students interact with AI tutors that can prompt them questions and point out details. Then they can collaborate on assignments, and the AI tutor can give feedback and suggest snippets. The AI can evaluate their work and their engagement with the material.", ">\n\nOne of Transformers main applications is in search. Ie you get a set of embeddings you can compare the pairwise distances between embedding and get a list of scores that tell you which embeddings are most similar to the input. \nEssentially tools like google are made to reduce the search space for a given query collect likely links and then rerank the most likely results. \nChatgpt basically does this in a more direct way of searching through a space of potential responses. Basically trained on a task to predict next token given the previous tokens or fill in a mask\nTransformers permeate everything students use from the recommendation algorithms on TikTok Facebook, YouTube to search systems in google. \nIn my opinion students should absolutely not be taught to fear these tools tho I do agree they be tested in constrained environments to challenge them. Current systems should not be used to learn unless you have a clear understanding and are willing to check every word and check your reasoning. Future systems will be much better though so this problem isn’t going anywhere. \nIf anything there should be a push to make these ideas more interpretable to a younger audience and give them the tools to navigate an increasingly complex market of ideas. They should be aware of the limitations and how when they use a piece of software their actions and the actions of those around them are influencing what they see next. \nIt should be used and taught with rigor. \nIt’s programming 2.0", ">\n\nDude no; \nChatGPT is the computer. \nDo you want to be the education system that banned the computer and then wondered why all the other education systems output modern tech workers, while your education system kept outputting chimney sweeps and car factory workers?", ">\n\nHW only exists to make students practice, and generally is worth less than 20% of the grade in a class. If a student chooses to use chat GPT to bypass it then that’s the student’s loss.\nUltimately exams are what schools use to evaluate a students knowledge and I don’t think that’s going to change anytime soon", ">\n\nThere are already programs that check if something was written by an AI or not. Also no student I know actually uses chatGPT for major assignments because chatGPT doesn’t know every text to ever be published so it doesn’t understand the context, and most of the time will just bullshit an answer that’s incorrect.\nEveryone I know that uses chatGPT for school do so for either for assignments so small and simple that it doesn’t make sense to quarantine, or they use it as a more advanced google that can answer questions more accurately than a search engine could, essentially just saving time.\n(most) students are using chatGPT largely as a productivity and time management tool rather than to cheat.", ">\n\nThis is like saying “in the age of calculators, the only way to ensure kids learn maths is to ban calculators in school”. If looked at correctly, chatgpt is an effect multiplier, learning just has to be rejigged to have kids learn to do things that they can’t simply ask chatgpt to do for them.", ">\n\nLess course work and more exams is the future in a world with chatGPT.", ">\n\nChatGPT will be a big no issue soon. I work in a research field and this was something we worried about last year. As of now there are multiple tools and even more being developed that catch the use of ChatGPT. There has been research published that list ChatGPT as a co-author, but for most research, and use by students, it will simply be forbidden and will easily be caught as well. The program does well but it has a particular style that can be caught. Again it will be a non-issue soon.", ">\n\nThis is like forbidding people to use a calculator because it can give you the result instant. A better way is to teach them how to use the calculator, because its here now and won't go away. Same with GPT. Children can learn way better/faster with ChatGPD if used correctly. Imaging having a private teacher for free which helps you learning every time of the day.", ">\n\nLet me ask you this. If ChatGPT could complete a students whole assignment, what would that student have learned from doing that assignment on their own that won’t simply be replaced with ChatGPT by a employer in the future?\nEven if ChatGPT doesn’t replace workers for a decade, why teach students skills that will inevitably be replaced and leave said students jobless in a decade?\nChatGPT won’t only be used in the workforce either. Linus Tech Tips has a video showing how ChatGPT can help people learn new skills and do troubleshooting on their own. If I remember correctly, he manages to completely build a pc by only strictly following what ChatGPT tells him to. It even managed to suggest the best parts for that computers specific use case. It was nowhere near perfect, but in the future it will get there.\nSince ChatGPT is such a useful tool in the workforce and at home, I think it’s crucial we teach students how to use it instead of banning them from it. Maybe students should be given a problem and tasked to use ChatGPT to find the solution or have students attempt to learn a new topic with ChatGPT. I’m not a teacher, I just thought of those examples of the top of my head. I’m sure qualified teachers could think of better assignments than me.\nI could see ChatGPT helping a mechanic diagnose an issue so the mechanic could spend more time fixing the problem rather than diagnosing and I can think of a few examples in other jobs as well where ChatGPT will help a worker be more efficient and save more time.\nI think, if anything, we’re setting students up for failure by not teaching them about these tools that will take over the workforce and help in everyday life.", ">\n\nYou’ll still have to pass a test. Relax.", ">\n\nIt “fairs” extremely well? Maybe some additional time spent observing ChatGPT could actually benefit some", ">\n\nThere’s just no way you can use ChatGPT to do all of your work for you and be successful at any moderately high level of academic pursuit. Not without learning the material yourself, and if you’ve done that, I don’t think it matters so much whether you used chatGPT and for what along the way.\nFrankly if you start our using chatGPT early in school, you won’t even be able to ask the right questions in the right way and include the necessary refinements to do more complex and demanding assignments down the road. \nAlso, tests are still a thing aren’t they? ChatGPT doesn’t help you perform in person in a monitored environment - not in a way that would allow you to skip learning the material. I don’t really get this aspect of your cmv. As long as tests don’t allow access to ChatGPT, anyone who didn’t learn the material is going to be exposed..", ">\n\nThere are already programs that detect ChatGPT writing.", ">\n\nThe children who want to cheat will always find a way to do so. It doesn’t matter how much you do to restrict it, it’ll just make them find new means of doing so. \nSource: I did GCSE’s in the UK, AP in the US. Trust, kids will cheat even in sterile environments. Especially if it’s a huge room and there are few moderators. A lot of us are scared of repercussions but those who aren’t won’t let anything stand in there way—region and proctoring be damned.", ">\n\nI require them to complete an outline first. Outline must be submitted to me before I take the essay. Google doc lets you see that they write it and when each sentence was written. It’s helped.", ">\n\nCHATGPT is a tool, and in some applications (not all), it can help students do their homework. Consider the calculator. Do students not need to learn formulas and critical thinking just because they can punch numbers into calculators?\nNo, math is still a skill that is valuable if for no other reason then because it trains your brain to solve problems.\nOne of the things that surprises me is that ChatGPT can use words and explain things to students even when a teacher is not available or when there isn’t one. we should consider this an educational opportunity rather than a disadvantage.\nThere are so many amazing things we humans can do when we simply have tools to help us. ChatGPT is no different.", ">\n\nYou can’t force people to live in the past. Chat GPT is here to stay. Education now needs to focus on teaching people how to use AI, and how to develop a skill that can’t be replaced by AI.", ">\n\nHow about getting students engaged in what they’re learning and excited to learn. Find what they’re good at and double down on it. Don’t make school a fucking quarantine bubble. Socialize, allow them to teach and learn from each other. Replace the potential for cheating with collaboration assignments in person. “Children will cheat if given the opportunity” is such horse shit. If somebody doesn’t know or wasn’t taught something well then yea they’re gonna look to get it right so they can obtain approval. How about teaching them so they won’t cheat??", ">\n\nThats not it. I don’t have an answer for you, but thats not it.", ">\n\nHow about just have the kids do a presentation on \"their\" report with Q&A at the end. They'll have no choice but to know the info.... which is the point.", ">\n\nWell, making an AI that detects if something was made by an AI shouldnt be hard", ">\n\nI wonder if anyone has tried training a machine to look at assignments and give a confidence interval of the assignment being either human or machine in origin.", ">\n\nYeah we call that stuff examns...", ">\n\nThe problem with your suggested approach is that it just reinforces the current failures of the education system. It doesn't actually teach us the skills that you will be able to use in the field. \n\nYou can look up formulas for physics and you can double check online for any coding questions. Chat gpt is a tool and I think forbidding students from using it will just be a disservice to them and everyone in the future. It's not going to go away any time soon so how about instead of teaching children to cheat more effectively, we teach them how to use chat gpt to its full potential? It can speed up so many tasks to such a degree that students will be able to recieve more advanced education in the time that was saved by using chat gpt", ">\n\nI mean, there are plenty of good reasons already said, but wouldn't it just be easy to cheat. You get home, ask Chat.gpt for a result, print it out. Bring it with you to the school quarantine, copy it into the computer. (Unless you would like a full strip search of the students upon entering, which is wrong in so many ways)", ">\n\nI could use this in my program all I wanted and pass courses with perfect scores, and at the end of my degree I’d have a licensure exam that I’d fail cause I didn’t learn anything.", ">\n\nGreat idea! While let's just ignore the real world and keep our heads in the sand. Let's also get rid of computers and ink pens and go back to stone and chisel!", ">\n\nInstead of asking students to write ...ask them to spot the mistakes and correct the essays.\nThat requires way more knowledge and mastership.", ">\n\nI feel like this is a modern day equivalent to saying that now that the internet is available at the family computer, students must complete their work entirely under supervision.\nAI is here and more that is better is coming and people need to learn how to integrate with it rather than fight it. It's going to take some jobs. Just like the cotton gin and steam drill took work from people who then immediately transitioned to other work that the machine couldn't do and to running to machine itself. People will need to run ChatGPT. Feed it, verify its output, clean it up and submit the report based on CGPT4.0's write up. Individuals need to know the material, sure, but we can't really keep students off the internet and trying to do so just wastes resources and makes teachers pull their hair out.", ">\n\nI think the problem lies deeper. Humans and especially children want to learn and understand. One of the most common words a 5 y/o uses is \"why\". \"Why do airplanes fly? Why is the sun bright? Why can't I have candy? Why isn't the house collapsing? It is bigger than my sandcastle that fell over.\" And the education system should be ashamed of itself that it kills this curiosity and motivation of the children. I don't want to go too deep into possible solutions. Just one anecdote from myself:\nWe had to produce an educational video. For that we got 20 hours time. We worked around 30, met at my apartment and filmed after a day off homeschooling. Nobody thought of cheating with chatgpt because we have the script our character. On the other hand: I should colour a heart now and I don't want to, so I don't do it.\nEveryone has their video and colouring schematics and we should encourage the prior to the latter, making the demand for cheating less important \nAlso we sent around our homeworks all the time. The concept of homework isn't great at all", ">\n\nHomeschool. Problem solved.", ">\n\nSorry, u/Own-Listen1552 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nHow is ChatGPT different than what Math teachers had to go through when calculators become a thing?\nAt first, they banned them \"because the students have to learn the material!\" \nStudents rebelled because \"We'll always have a calculator available.\"\nEventually, teachers relented and now allow calculators in the class.\nDo you see the trajectory of ChatGPT going any different?\nAs for ChatGPT improving, if everybody is using it then it won't be able to improve because the only new input will just be reinforcing feedback from its own work.\nAs for children cheating, how is using ChatGPT different than any other sort of plagiarism detection that teachers already have to deal with? Also, the makers of ChatGPT also provide a tool that will tell you if a particular work product was produced by it. Isn't that good enough of a deterrent?\nAir gapping the kids from legitimate research material seems to be a bit extreme to me.", ">\n\nWhen I was young, calculators weren't allowed. Later, we were allowed to use them, but only on some tests.\nPersonally, I thought that was stupid. It's like training a carpenter, but not allowing power tools.\nAI is here to stay. Teach them how to use that useful tool to maximum effect, instead of teaching a work method which will likely be obsolete within five years.", ">\n\nHow bout not putting children in a prison for 8 hours, but teach them how to learn and getting them interested and motivated for school. My biggest problem in School was how boring most of the teachers taught the material. Maybe dont let every random highly educated person be a teacher if they cant work with kids. When i had the right teacher he sort of started my hunger for knowledge about the themes he was teaching. Plus kids and teenagers hate doing what theyre told to do so i dont think that is a solution at all.", ">\n\nAgree that airgapped areas are necessary but the best way to educate children in the era of ChatGPT is to develop a ChatGPT based tool that quizzes children on homework they hand in." ]
> There are other ways to determine a child's understanding of material. A friend of mine is a teacher and he asks students (11-16) to read read their essays out loud. If you can't read it, you definitely didn't write it. He also asks what certain sentences mean; if they can't tell him, they didn't write it. You can also get children to give spoken presentations. Sure ChatGPT could write the presentation for you, but you would have to learn the content well enough to give the presentation.	[ "/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^\| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.", ">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?", ">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.", ">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?", ">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.", ">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?", ">\n\nYou mean a grade?", ">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication", ">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.", ">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)", ">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.", ">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.", ">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.", ">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.", ">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?", ">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.", ">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.", ">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.", ">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.", ">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.", ">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.", ">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.", ">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.", ">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.", ">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.", ">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.", ">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.", ">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.", ">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use", ">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.", ">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.", ">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.", ">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.", ">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.", ">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.", ">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.", ">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).", ">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.", ">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.", ">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.", ">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.", ">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.", ">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.", ">\n\n\nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \n\nWhy? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it. \n\nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \n\nWhy? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? \nLet's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project. \n\nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.\n\nTotally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator.", ">\n\nFor the most part, knowledge workers perform a given amount of work in a given amount of hours, and the number of them hired by a company is TotalHoursNeeded/NumHoursPerEmployee. E.g. if you have 100 manyears of work to get done in a typical year, you employ 100 people.\nChat GPT isn't going to \"replace\" people wholesale, because as you say someone still needs to supervise it. But it looks to be on track to increase the productivity of programmers (can write a first draft of code and finds many of the bugs instantly). \nSame for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones. \nSo now the TotalNeeded is decreased by some percentage, let's say 10% to start. Now you only need 90 human programmers to do that same work. With 25% efficiency gain, you need 75. With 50%, 50. Etc. \nOr take translation jobs. Today, an editor spends roughly 3 minutes per word editing machine translated text, and 1 minute per word editing human-translated text. As long as editors are more expensive per hour than first translation people, it still makes sense much of the time to hire translators, because the software isn't free. \nBut the graph of machine translation \"efficiency\" is trending towards taking the same amount of time to edit as a human translator. As soon as that's hit, there's literally no reason to hire human translators, only editors. \nAnd if the editing time goes down to 30 seconds/word because of further AI assistance to the editor, you only need half as many of those.", ">\n\nThere is currently two better solutions being worked on - one of which is already being used to some degree. \nThe first is ChatGPT developers themselves making moves to make AI written works to be identified by \"watermark\" or similar. I don't thi k this one has taken effect at all yet. \nAnother is by a separate dev team that allows teachers to use software to determine the amount of an essay, for example, that is written by AI what the likelihood of any one sentence or paragraph to have been written by AI. This allows the teachers to use discretion when determining if the student used the AI in a way that they find acceptable or not. This way instead kf running from the scary AI educators can actually utilize tyhe AI with students to help them develop their writing and other communications.", ">\n\nWhat about kids with transportation issues? When I was in school I knew kids that drove almost an hour each way to get there. I certainly couldn’t have asked my parents to drop everything to take me all the way to school so I could do my homework if I forgot. Bus schedules? Do you think schools want to waste more money by burning more gas for extra routes? I understand where you’re coming from, but for a fair amount of children—especially in poorer, more rural areas—that getting to school and back is such a delicate balancing act that such a thing would just punish them.", ">\n\nI've seen a few key things from academics testing out ChatGPT (I have not signed up myself):\n\nIt tends to produce confident, convincing nonsense. It doesn't actually understand what it's writing about, and I hear it shows.\nIt makes up citations. Real authors in the field, real journals... but made-up titles. Things like that, since, again, it doesn't actually understand citations.\n\nThis suggests that, for assignments requiring the demonstration of genuine, in-depth understanding, and not merely the ability to summarize facts, ChatGPT will fail.\nA similar example that you bring up in the comments is programming cheat sheets into calculators - but for well-designed engineering exams (including the licensure exams, at least in the US), cheat sheets are fine and often either allowed or provided. A well-designed exam tests the ability to apply principles, not knowledge of equations, so a cheat sheet is harmless, or even allows the exam to work better (since people aren't distracted with memorizing equations).", ">\n\nThere are three criticisms that I have of this approach. \n\n\nShould we not teach to the environment that we live in? Yes, education often imposes arbitrary constraints like time tests but for research and reports why not let people use and work around all resources? If you can work around chat gpt to work efficiently, then do it. You learn what it can and can’t do and how to use it effectively as a tool. \n\n\nCan chatGPT on it’s own actually write a good essay? From what I have seen it can pull together a few sources. It can generally write fluff based on other things that it has seen. But it struggles to write analysis. It can’t interrogate a source or make value judgements. It could be useful for doing some filler or providing ideas but if to do an actual report, I think it would be insufficient. \n\n\nAn assignment that can be done using chatgpt is probably boring. Here I am writing an essay for no reason other than I find it interesting to discuss this topic. Perhaps, we arent giving students interesting enough assignments or we are overloading them to the point that they don’t have the time to engage? If chatGPT turns out to be an issue maybe it’s more of an indictment of the structures and norms of education.", ">\n\n\n\nhomework in the form of essays, take home tests, coding assignments, would be completed on school grounds. \n\n\nCongratulations, you've invented the \"cram school\".\nI'd recommend reading through your post again and actually thinking about the things you've said. Because essentially, you're merely advocating for the wholesale elimination of homework and for education outside of that to remain totally unchanged. It's almost literally, \"Make the school day 30% longer\".\nMy solution to the \"problem\" of students potentially using ChatGPT to cheat on homework: I don't think you need a hilariously convoluted system of homework \"boiler rooms\" redolent of national security apparatus, that requires schools to adopt ruinously expensive and disruptive technological and administrative changes.\nIt would be sufficient if we institute a system whereby teachers are encouraged to, let's say... \"test\" their students, whether by regular written exams or by talking to them in what I'll call \"classes\", to ensure they understand the material they've been assigned to learn.\nThis method ensures that students cannot use AI homework bots to coast through classes (since they'll literally be found out the very next class), and has the added benefit of not adding three hours to every teacher's day.", ">\n\nWhat about pen and ink?", ">\n\narguably I can just copy a ChatGPT output by hand. So I think that is a first level measure, but not a complete solution.", ">\n\nIt's a better solution than prison just because the curriculum can't keep up with technology.\nWhen calculators arrived on everyone's phone and everyone's pocket did you advocate for the same solution? Unlikely, so why only now with this system?", ">\n\nWell I did and I was. When I was studying engineering in the 80s we routinely could not arrive at exams with a calculator. Even then calculators were programmable enough to allow students to write cheat sheets in calculator memory.\nIt forced us to memorize equations, principals of engineering, and independent thinking. I’m a better engineer because I did.", ">\n\nSo you're what, almost 60? And you think what's best for children is to be like you? Don't you think you may be a bit out of touch?\nAlso, your view was about K12 students, not engineering students.", ">\n\nNo. As I replied, leaning on tools as a crutch all your life will limit your ability and function as a human. For example, you could argue that basic math isn’t necessary. As matter of fact that was an argument years ago with the advent of calculators.\nHowever, humans should be able to exist and functions without a digital crutch. You should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator. You should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google. There are basic elements of duration necessary since we are all still wet grey matter.", ">\n\n\nYou should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator\n\nBut why?\n\nYou should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google\n\nAgain, why?\nWhere do you get your \"should\" from?\nI have basically all human knowledge in my hand, every equation or conversion I'll ever need day to day, even every language I'll likely ever encounter. Why shouldn't I leave my brain free to think about what it wants and to use my incredible resource as and when it's needed?\nDo you envision some Saw-like situation where you're locked to a wall and need to solve maths equations at pain of death?", ">\n\nThe less you use your brain the less likely your body is to maintain it. Our body functions through a use or lose it principle. Just look people who lose movement function/muscle just by being bedridden for a long time. Our brain is not different.\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.", ">\n\nIs wasting resources on process you can deletage outside not using your brain? You free up that space to put to what you decide is important.\n\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.\n\nThe weakest man with a gun can take out the strongest bodybuilder.", ">\n\nAnd if you decide Tik tok and Netflix are important? How do you think that will affect the cognitive ability of kids?\nI didn't mention strength nor physical strength. And even then the strongest man with a gun will probably take out the weakest man with a gun.(An actual fair comparison)", ">\n\nCouldn't chatgpt (or somesuch AI) be asked \"Hey - did you write this?\" and nip this sort of thing in the bud?", ">\n\nNo, Chat GPT doesn't remember everything it's said, the potential things it could say are huge and even if someone wrote something that Chat GPT might say, it could be a coincidence.", ">\n\nWell, strike that idea then.\nStill though - there must be some way to use AI to deal with this. \"set a thief to catch a thief\" and all that.", ">\n\nChat GPT (and most generative AIs) use GANs to generate content. \nIn laymen's terms (and extremely simplified as it's above my level of understanding) a GAN is 2 AI systems competing against each other, a creator AI that creates content and a checker AI that decides if the content was genuine or made by the other AI. \nSo any automated way to tell if it's AI generated can be built into the checker AI in future versions and the creator AI will learn to avoid whichever features the checker AI is spotting.", ">\n\nChatGPT is just another mechanism for reducing the need for labor, and it's not going away. \nChildren will need to be educated in both how to make effective use of it (for as long as it's not sufficient to completely eliminate mental labor), and also in the ethics of not using it. Always forcing them to write in airgapped places isn't going to do that, it just makes them resent it. \nAlso: essay writing on a scale needed to really learn long-form writing is not very amenable to doing in an airgapped classroom, because honestly we're not using dead-tree sources of information anymore already, so doing their research pretty much has to include doing it on line. \nBut really: laborious manual long-form essay writing is going to go the way of penmanship and looking things up in a library as an unneeded skill very quickly. We need children to adjust to that reality of the modern world rather than pretending it will go away. \nPeople are still needed (for now) to do the important part of writing essays without doing the laborious bit that ChatGPT automates anyway: deciding what to write, and editing it into a convincing and well-written form. \nForcing kids to spend a lot of time learning how to write the basic bulk part of essays is a lot like teaching them how to make buggy-whips in shop class: a pointless exercise. \nIt would be better to give them all prewritten ChatGPT essays and have them learn the limitations and capabilities.", ">\n\nIs ChatGPT really that much more effective than just grabbing things off Wikipedia? I was asking it things about elections and it was just Wikipedia from two years ago", ">\n\nThe answer is NEVER to limit technology. It’s to teach the new generation how to use that technology to achieve the same goal.\nIt’s pointless to ban computers and teach the memorization of dates in history class. It’s much more productive to teach online research skills so that if an individual needs to know the date of a particular moment in history, they can reliably Google it.\nChatGPT is the same. It renders writing essays as pointless, and it necessitates the teachers to adapt to new teaching styles, such as teaching the skills on how best to manipulate ChatGPT to return the information you need.", ">\n\nI was banned from using programming calculators when I studied engineering in the 80s during exams. It forced the students to all be on the same level playing field and forced us to actually know the equations, their applications, and the processes of whatever engineering course I was taking.\nIt made us better engineers.", ">\n\nHow does handicapping you make you a better engineer? If I put you and an engineer trained with technology in the same room together, who do you think would accomplish the task faster?", ">\n\nThe handicapped engineer, easily. The point of forcing students to actually learn the material is so that they understand how to reason about the underlying processes when they need to troubleshoot something going wrong, and understand the tradeoffs between approaches and how to select the best one for the task. \nOnce you understand things deeply you don't actually need training in doing things quickly because it's immediately intuitive how to apply a technological process to save time. The guy that leaned heavily on technology is basically fucked if he has to use a technique or software that he didn't specifically train on since he doesn't have a good foundation to abstract from. It would be more appropriate to call this person a technician.", ">\n\nThe purpose of calculators is to do the menial part of the work, not to solve whole processes. The engineer that learned with calculators likely knows how to select the right process to solve a problem, but uses the calculator to do the math faster and with fewer errors.", ">\n\nAt the college level, we’re not talking about tools to add and multiply. We’re talking about tools like Wolfram Alpha that do entire symbolic manipulations for you. If I took a calculus class and on all the assignments used Wolfram Alpha to find derivatives, do you think I would have learned anything?\nThat is what ChatGPT is doing for essays", ">\n\nThere are things called pencil and paper.", ">\n\nAs I said, this is the first line defense. However as I already commented to another user. I can simply hand copy ChatGPT output. Essentially not doing my own independent research, writing, coding, and studying.", ">\n\nWhy don't you consider that research? \nThe first source was the best. It's incredibly efficient research IMO.", ">\n\nThe idea of tool removal has always been flawed. From calculators to chat GPT and beyond. If your test is so flimsy that a simple tool invalidates it then the test is poorly built. Test shouldn't be simple busywork tasks, they should require thinking, problem solving, complex thought. If it's just a game of memorization that can be cheated by answers on a paper, you've built a bad test.\nover memorization (which is what our current school systems teach) is not only unhelpful, but also harmful. We live in an era of wikipedia being a reliable source, of vast access to tools both online and phsycial. We should be teaching kids they should do the work but with the help of those tools, not despite them.\nThe main issue with your argument is that based on what you've said, i can assume you think the current school system is a good one but so many studies have shown that at least here in the US, the school systems are some of the worst in the world. It's this memorize, ignore tools, singular focus mentality that plays such a big role.\nIf we were more creative with education, incorporating tool utilization into the learning process, we'd likely have a major improvement to our educational successes. I could go on about how the education system prefers certain kinds of students over others, and how many students are left behind simply because they don't learn like other kids and are therefore punished, but I won't. All I'll say is that more restrictions on how and what kids learn isn't going to help them learn more or better.\nand in 15 years when chat GPT is a part of daily life in every single company on the planet in some way or another (which I'm beyond certain it will be), kids who were taught how to properly utilize it will have just such a huge advantage in the workforce over those who weren't", ">\n\nRather than attempt to find ways to prevent new technology from interfering with existing pedagogy, shouldn't we review and revise pedagogy as new technology develops? \nIf a chat AI program can write these things, what is the point of having humans repeatedly do the same work? We don't expect people to use an abacus when doing math, or limit their research to what's in the library card catalogue, or require printed paper publications as essay resources; we adapted to the calculator, and to the internet and search engines. So too should we adapt to things like ChatGPT, not by trying to pretend it doesn't exist, but by finding ways to incorporate it into a more holistic approach to learning.\nRather than chain kids to an airgapped room on school grounds outside of school hours to do homework that's of dubious educational value in the first place, we should take this as an opportunity to refocus schooling on in-class engagement and direct instruction. ChatGPT and programs like it are showing us yet another thing we as humans can outsource to our technology, so why struggle to do things in a more difficult and inefficient way?", ">\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\nIn addition, AI is only as good as the data it is fed. You must still be able to do the work on your own to analyze when the AI is giving valid outputs (garbage in, garbage out). This is especially true, when AI runs the risks of being owned or operated by those with a specific agenda. Can you imagine the trouble that would result if people relied on AI to determine who to vote for, but someone was able to pay the operators to have the AI promote them?\nRelying on AI to do our work for us is a distillation of an appeal to authority fallacy on a large scale (if the AI says it, it must be true).", ">\n\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\n\nThis is something I worry about A LOT when it comes to AI. Our collective understanding of the subjects that we usually classify as \"the humanities\" is constantly evolving as we learn more, and especially as a more diverse set of people are allowed to study, research and put forth opinions and arguments.\nImagine if students were outsourcing all their history, psychology, sociology and philosophy homework to a chatbot with a 1950s understanding of those subjects.\nImagine doctors outsourcing psych patient diagnoses to a chatbot with the same understanding.\nOn an arguably less \"serious\" but still critically important moral and political topic, imagine if all/most videogame art was outsourced to an AI engine with a 1990s sensibility for female characters. Same for all kinds of representation and diversity.\nHow about politics and political science in general... ha!\nEtc, etc etc.\nIt is NOT the case that we already have discovered all the true answers to the big questions, and we can merely turn to a \"knowledge calculator\" like ChatGPT to spit out the truth.\nEven if AI can pretty accurately reflect the discourse of the day, as it is currently understood and accepted, our collective knowledge and culture will stagnate if we do not actively participate in developing it, and we will all pay the price for that.", ">\n\nThese are all moralistic arguments that ultimately don’t mean anything.", ">\n\nI would say they are more epistemic arguments, which do matter greatly in the context of education (which is what the op was referring to).", ">\n\nAre any of these things mentioned actually realistic concerns? Someone is going to train an AI bot to generate 90s female art characters with big tits?\nNo. Lol and even if someone did, who cares?", ">\n\nConsidering how many people believe obviously fake stories that have no supporting evidence (and in spite of contrary evidence), yes, I believe they are very real concerns.\nIf an AI says we should use Brawndo in farming because its got what plants crave (electrolytes), we should probably be able to justify it with reasoning beyond \"the AI says so.\"", ">\n\nWho is suggesting we do anything “just because an AI said so”? \nDo you read books and think everything in it is true “because the book says so”?", ">\n\nHow do you determine if what the book/ai said is false?\nYou would typically do it through a process of research and discovery.\nPeoples' ability to do research and discovery will be greatly diminished if we rely on AI to do those things for us (which is what the previous posters were suggesting).\nTherefore, reliance on AI will lead to us losing the ability to discern if the results of what the AI is saying is correct.", ">\n\nWhat? Lol that doesn’t make any sense at all. \nIt is not like if we use AI then all previous knowledge is simply forgotten or lost. It’s all still there.", ">\n\nForcing homework at school makes that \"not homework\", and this approach has never worked. You cant reject change, it never works. Every time there has been a game changing event, people adapted. Those who tried to reject change disappeared. Horse carriages disappeared from roads because something else replaced it. Some people supposedly rejected progress, but they are lying to themselves, they still use modern tech or services at some point.\nAnyway, the change is here, and it made essays irrelevant. Time to find another way to test people skills. \nGive it a little time though. ChatGPT costs a ginormous amount of money to run and will not stay free for long either.", ">\n\nIt's not just ChatGPT, the actual innovation is not the interface but lies in algorithms that can recreate natural language of similar quality with smaller data samples. There are also OpenSource datasets like ThePile, etc. so even if OpenAI moves to a paid model (and they will, quickly. You can already sign up to be first in line for the API), there will be other free providers.", ">\n\nHaving coded AIs, I disagree. ChatGPT is a regular trained AI. The novelty is the scale of the operation, and the fact there is a public API.\nNo one ever spent that much money on resources to run and train an AI publicly. I am pretty sure google has done something similar with user data sets to make their search engine and general ecosystem.\nI wish there was a way to have algorithms working with smaller data sets and produce similar results, but it kind of does not work that way.", ">\n\nThere are already tools to identify ChatGPT generated texts. Such tools will improve as another use of literally the same technology.\nJust as teachers submit essays for identifying plagiarism, teachers will submit essays for identifying AI-generated text. \nFurther, a focus could change from grading students on what they know to grading students' ability to ask meaningful, content-based questions about the subject. After all, knowing facts isn't particularly valuable as a skill. Integrating facts and discovering valuable questions is still something that remains a uniquely human skill. And is where people will continue to add value as AI becomes more advanced.", ">\n\nStudents have always been able to 'cheat' on work done outside the classroom, by copying or somehow getting others to do their work for them, even before the internet. Yes with more advanced modern technology it is easier but this has always been a concern. \nAs regular learning environments like supervised classrooms are already 'quarantined' in the way you descibe you are fundementally just suggesting an increase in learning hours as a supplement to homework. This has been suggested by many for various reasons but it would overall cuase more issues than it fixes. It increases work load on teachers and administrators, stretching already thin educational budgets, and forces increased mental strain on children. It would limit their ability to do other recreational and out of ciriculum activities. This would be disruptive and controlling when the quantity of teaching and learning time that children recive is already considered sufficiant for a good education.", ">\n\nHell the only thing stopping me from using ChatGPT regularly for my work now is that it's always at capacity.", ">\n\nApply tests that are hand written, doesnt matter how a person obtains the knowledge, actually learning the subject is most important thing.", ">\n\nThere is no amount of ChatGPT that could influence a good old oral exam where the teacher evaluates the understanding via a little chat.", ">\n\nSo tired of this view. We shouldn’t be fighting technology. Teach kids to use the resources they have to find answers. It’s such a waste of 12 years of school, teaching kids to memorize facts and follow rules. \nInstead, every test should be open book and reward the best answers. Ask the kids to show their work or explain their thought process so we reward understanding of a topic rather than memorization of steps or text.", ">\n\n20 years ago, there were already homework communities and learn groups. Even from the publishers of school books and with free access to tutors. Ok, they didnt do the final homework for me, but gave me a great starting point.\nBeing the kid who transcribes a wiki page was already stupid back then when others could call you out:\nBut I guess the actual problem is lack of digital literacy with teachers, they're always 5-10 years behind.", ">\n\nIf you are testing skills that can be done by free tools on the internet, then you are testing irrelevant skills.\nThe best way to educate kids is to test for skills they need, not skills they objectively don't.\nI was able to witness a couple of universities adapt to tests during quarantine, and follow reports on how the new methods would be used going forward.\nThe results where thus:\nMass offline testing is incredibly cost efficient (one examiner per ~300 students), but the tests results are a poor indicator of real world performance.\nOne to One testing is incredibly expensive, but can, when done right, test actual understanding and performance.\nBoth will be useful, of course. Mass testing is most useful when used in a way that students aren't incentivized to cheat, such as when framed as practice.", ">\n\nOne of the upsides of needing to prevent this kind of tech from cheating assignments is that teachers should focus on having students be able to do their homework at school. (As a former teacher, we were trying to do this already- no more than 15 min of homework per class). \nI dont think we need to do quite what you say. We just need to limit outside electronics and have in-person classrooms or computer labs with programs designed to be AI-proof. \nI have ALWAYS believed that cell phones/internet watches should be stored in school lockers (at most) and never allowed anywhere else on campus during the school day. If anyone needs to contact the students they contact the desk who relays their message/other need. Many schools already do this.", ">\n\n∆\nI agree with this. It would help.", ">\n\nThank you!", ">\n\nThat is utterly pointless.\nThere is no reason to limit the available tools.\nThis just reminds me of the entire \"you won't have a calculator wherever you go\" argument.\nSchool should instead put a focus on responsibly using available tools.", ">\n\nAnd if students choose to use them irresponsibly, what should schools do?\nAnd can you please define what constitutes responsible use? Because despite knowing about plagiarism, people still copy and paste from the internet. Perfect abstinence is easier than perfect moderation after all.", ">\n\nJust return to hand written essays and have more oral exams.", ">\n\n∆l\nActually of all comments having oral exams compliments my post and I agree with you. Enjoy the delta.", ">\n\nIn a Faraday cage.", ">\n\nIf children can just generate work with ChatGPT, it simply shows that children are not being taught anything valuable. (Once ChatGPT responses can be generated in almost unlimited amounts at very low cost, it necessarily means those responses are of low value)\nInstead shouldn't we be teaching children to provide more valuable outcomes that ChatGPT can't replicate?", ">\n\nBeing able to do on your own what ChatGPT does with access to an immense amount of data and processing power is valuable. The actual writing isn't valuable, obviously, but it would be silly to expect it to be. It's just a side effect of practice, you spend time making things of little or no value to build up the skills you'll need to make something that actually matters. That's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\nI think you'd be hard pressed to teach a class of children to outperform ChatGPT in writing without ever asking them to write something that could also be done via AI. What would that even look like?", ">\n\n\nThat's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\n\nIt is a problem. That is why I hated math class until 2nd year of university.", ">\n\nDid you start discovering novel math results in your second year of university, or was that just the point at which you first encountered problems you found interesting, despite the fact that someone else had already solved them before? Thinking back the class you didn't hate, do you think it should be removed if someone can construct an AI to give all the answers you gave?", ">\n\nThis is only a method for evaluating students, it doesn't do anything to educate them.\nChatgpt is potentially a great tool for education but trying to find complex ways around it for homework is pointless. When testing fact retention is required using school/university computers with no web browsing makes sense. For any other test or situation it's a tool that might be used.", ">\n\nI understand OPs concern. That said, I do not think you can create true quarantine for a multitude of reasons. \nThe biggest one is probably time. I worked through high school and university. Because I lived in the middle of nowhere it was about a 30 min drive to high school and then an hour to uni. Having to stay at these quarantine zones to complete assignments would have been hell on my schedule, car, and wallet. \nYou said it yourself, if someone is going to cheat, they will cheat. If I had to do the work in a quarantine zone, what exactly stops me from doing the actual work on my computer at home, printing it all out, and then just writing that into the computer at the quarantine zone? Unless you want to try having students write an entire essay in their hour long class? There has to be a point where they go home and then this falls apart.", ">\n\nThere are already lots of ways to cheat in homework and mostly our steps to deal with that amount to the honour system, and by university level, automated plagiarism detection (which can be quite easily avoided). The point you \"won't argue\" that people will cheat if given the opportunity is probably the actual crux of what's wrong with your suggestion and the part that needs a big [citation needed]. Concluding that the majority of people are fundamentally dishonest is a big assumption to handwave away. \nIf you want an education, cheating is stupid. Ultimately you might get a paper qualification out of it but you'll have actually learned nothing - you won't hold up long against someone who has done it properly when you actually have to apply the skills. Or if you do, then the assignments weren't that crucial to the learning in the first place.", ">\n\nMany of the things I learned in school were largely irrelevant. I couldn't use a calculator to do long division. After I passed those early elementary school years I never did long division again. I wouldn't even argue learning the long division algo is mandatory. It's nice to have learnt it I guess, but I spent way too many hours on it. I can see learning fundamentals of essay writing, etc, are great, but why can't we just evolve to learn more effective things in life? ChatGPT should be used as a tool, not viewed as a detriment.", ">\n\nIt'd suggest that the best way to educate them is to embrace ChatGBT and teach them to use it well. Your method is a bit like teaching kids to do math without calculators or accounting without excel or financial software. There is some value, but it runs out very quickly and you're at a social and competetive disadvantage for taking some archane principled approach to education that is more of a defense of \"how we used to do it\".\nI'm old enough to remember when using a word processor was sometime forbidden for reasons of fairness - that seems entirely disconnected now from doing good work and it's almost hard to envision the thought process of those who thought everything should be hand written for students. \nIsn't the kid who is amazing at utilizing tools like ChatGBT going to do much better in the world than the one who does not? Your idea of \"proper education\" would easily regress back to needing to do all subjects scrawled in dirt with sticks and grunted in non-standardized language.", ">\n\nOR, chatgpt will be a great boon to the entire education system:\nIncreased accessibility: ChatGPT and other AI-powered systems can provide education to individuals who otherwise would not have access to it, due to geographical, financial, or other barriers.\n\nPersonalized learning: ChatGPT can provide personalized education experiences based on each student's strengths, weaknesses, and learning style.\n\n24/7 availability: ChatGPT can operate 24/7, providing students with access to education at any time, anywhere, which can be especially beneficial for those with demanding schedules or for individuals in remote areas.\n\nScalability: ChatGPT can provide education to a large number of students simultaneously, which could help to address the shortage of teachers and resources in some areas.\n\nCost-effectiveness: ChatGPT can be a more cost-effective option for providing education compared to traditional methods, as it does not require physical classrooms or teachers.\n\nImproved student engagement: ChatGPT can provide interactive, engaging learning experiences that can hold students' attention and foster deeper learning.\n\n--Source: ChatGPT", ">\n\nThere a lots of places where texts and exams are “open book”. The questions have to be written differently, and the point is that you’re not testing someone’s ability to memorize, but rather their ability to understand. This is a more difficult test to write, so in theory AI could force education to improve since everyone would a virtual tutor with them at all times.", ">\n\nI'm a teacher and I've been thinking a lot about this the last couple months. Changes within the education system/curriculum/syllabus/retraining of teachers will take far too long to keep up with the ease of access to, and success of, chatgpt and AI in general. \nThe only solution moving forward both short and long term is to embrace it, there is no stopping it now anyway and if we don't all want to be out of a job in 5 years we need to - \n- demonstrate feasible/moral/ethical use of such tools\n- create more opportunities for collaborative learning/hands-on/problem solving tasks and ones that increase communication skills between peers. \nHow this applies to each individual, specific task will vary and must require a lot of creativity and trial and error, but I think relying too heavily on your department of education to handle this (or most 'boots on the ground' problems) will ultimately only degrade a students experience and ability for learning.", ">\n\nI'm with you on what you're trying to accomplish. I just don't know that it's the \"best\" way. \nFor instance, how is homework performed in school superior to trusting the kids to learn the material, which would then be tested by oral exam? And yes, I do believe that asking a student to verbally explain a topic is a really good way to gauge mastery.", ">\n\nThere is not a hope in hell that we'll go back to hand written stuff. That's not how technology works. As the music companies. There are better ways to show you know a subject, for sure, than the current out of-date ones. That's for sure. Have you ever taken an on-line exam?", ">\n\nI argue to let them use chatGPT as it will be their future. This is similar to my generations \"you'll never walk around with a calculator so learn math.\" The future children will grow into a society where work means utilizing AI tech to help them thrive. If chatGPT helps them write an essay, and it's good, it means they're using resources. I agree, however, that we should supplement this with actual reading and writing.", ">\n\nI would argue that most of time that ChatGPT and similar technologies is going to be an issue is in 8-12 grade and college.\nThis technology is not going away, and it's only going to improve. Personally I would treat it like calculators, audio books and spell check.\nTech kids how to use the technology properly. Sure it's somewhat handy to calculate numbers in your head, but having the ability to do math in your head does not give you much of an advantage in today's world and not being able to doesn't hurt you much. But it's still critical to know formulas and how to peace together algebraic statements and word problems. \nKnowing how to spell properly is less important than knowing proper word usage - most times you're writing something it can be spell-checked in real time. Sure it's \"terrible that today's kids...\" don't know how to spell... but it's not going to affect their career. \nEnter ChatGPT - same thing. Should I spend the time to write a white paper on the changing advertising landscape to alert my boss about the a potential seismic shift in advertising revenue, or should I ask ChatGPT to write it? As a user I have to understand its limits and potential copywrite issues, but even more importantly how to verify that what it writes is correct and targeting the right audience. Is data from before 2020 going to be recent and accurate enough for my thesis? How do I supplement the discussion with real-world data? \nThis is our new reality. We should be learning how to use the tools properly, not trying to figure out to lock it down (which frankly makes as much sense as locking down the use of calculators or spell check).", ">\n\nI think there are already apps in place that are able to detect AI generated text (Read this article).\nAlso, I think a better method would be to simply have a database of ChatGPT (could be encrypted) generated text and make it available to already existing software that is use to detect plagiarism (this is just an exemple amongst many)", ">\n\nFrankly I don’t think high schoolers and below should be given homework or tests at all. One learns magnitudes better through exploration as opposed to mindless repetition. Engage with these kids intellectually, make them free thinking Athenians, not bags of knowledge of which they have no idea how to use.\nDoes it not surprise anyone that we train people for over a decade in intellect yet hardly have any intellectuals?", ">\n\nI would argue that society would be better off spending resources on teaching children how to use this tool effectively. Knowing how to get the right answer is what matters in this world.", ">\n\nThen answer this: Well why learn math at all? Seriously.\nWhy learn he concept of subtraction let alone division? I could and society has argued that with the advent of digital calculators. \nYet we learn it. \nLater we use calculators to take the mundane and already known processes to the next level. We abstract away the mundane. \nAs a EE having worked and am working on products you may be using right now to read this, when I develop new silicon and chips I don’t break out Karnaugh maps and lay down circuit using a T square and stencils of gates. But I sure the hell know what I’m doing and expect the tools to do for me. \nTeaching fundamentals of reading, writing, arithmetic, essays, research are just that fundamental.", ">\n\nI’d argue that the vast majority don’t need anything beyond basic math anyways. \nGo ask the average adult if they know the quadratic equation and what it means and you’d probably be disappointed.", ">\n\nChatGPT is here to stay, you'd better advocate for teaching people how to make the most of it and use it wisely instead of pretending it doesn't exist.\nOne of my favourite teachers always told students to use the best tools there are.", ">\n\nI think it depends completely on the topic. In my field of study, it’s fairly easy to come up with term paper assignments that the bot would be useless for. \nLooking back at the paper I wrote last year, I don’t see how any current bot could have helped, as it isn’t able to read or summarize specific sources (yet?).\nAn example of the type of assignments we get is “Discuss the role of state capacity in x and x conflict in light of (specific research paper)‘s dimensions of state capacity - do your findings confirm the findings of (authors), why or why not?\nThis way of combining literature made it difficult even for me to be on top of it, as there were no sources that had attempted this exact combination - it has to be original. \nAlso, I find it’s the best way to learn, because you have to rely on your own judgement and there are no shortcuts, even asking the professor was unhelpful as he wasn’t too familiar with the details.", ">\n\nThis is not the best way.", ">\n\n\nThese homework rooms would have Internet connected computers for use but access to ChatGPT would be filtered and blocked.\n\nThis wouldn't be feasible, there's far too many roundabout ways to still access ChatGPT. Security measures like domain filtering are just unproductive games of whack-a-mole. \nEdit: removed all the other stuff I wrote, as those points have already been mentioned in previous top-level comments.", ">\n\nHomework shouldn’t be the go-to method of “education” to begin with. Imo Universities should focus on the integral part of education: the lectures. Tools like chatgpt can help student who are actually interested in a subject to learn more easily about it, but whether students actually learn anything or not from a class won’t change regardless of if work is authentic or copied from an AI\nSource: I’m a college student and have had experience in both supervised environments where we had to do work without the use of computers/phones and solely-online environments where many students cheated", ">\n\nWhile this could work, it is not necessarily the best way in terms of accessibility and of learning in general. \nFirst, students with ADHD and certain other conditions may not necessarily be the able to be productive at all times, or at the specific time they have to work on those computers, especially if those computers are not in an environment ideal to that specific person. It would also not be very feasible to give students enough time on these computers to complete the bigger assignments and essays. \nSecond, while ChatGPT is quite advanced, it simply works by looking at language patterns and often gets factual details incorrect. For example, with bigger coding problems, it tries to import modules that do not exist or call on functions that it has not defined. In literature, it cannot analyze texts on much more than a surface level. I will admit it can use secondary sources for textual analysis, however, it is unable to come up with a clear thesis on its own. \nAdditionally, take-home tests can be just as easily cheated on using a normal Google search, and usually test thinking skills rather than understanding and knowledge. \nFinally, essay-writing and other types of assignments are generally not ideal for learning as they are only one type of skill, and university professors are recognizing this. Not only do they not work for all learning styles, but they are only used so commonly because of tradition. University professors are structuring assignments around ways that are innovative enough that ChatGPT is unable to work on them. Along with requiring specific readings which the AI might not have access to, and citing of all sources (which has always been a requirement that the AI might trip up on), they are also going away from the traditional essay format into others. For example, I am studying literature, a relatively essay-heavy field, and in my past few courses I have been asked to analyze comics (which the AI cannot read), edit other people’s essays and articles (from past courses), create a mock syllabus or lesson plan with justifications for each reading, and create annotated bibliographies as a stepping stone to an essay. All of these not only require different skills and encourage different types of learning and research but are quite difficult for an AI to do. \nAll in all, while your suggestion is great, the very nature of the AI and the fact that it exists at all is perhaps a sign that the best course of action is to rework the way we think about evaluation. After all, if an evaluation is such that an AI can complete it without the ability to actually think (it works by using observed language patterns), then perhaps the evaluation is not ideal.", ">\n\nI bet teachers and people thought the same thing about calculators when they came out or 1990s internet. AI bots like chat GPT are just a tool.", ">\n\nAll this effectively does is train kids to accomplish goals of a type that do not exist in the real world in a situation they will never realistically encounter. A better goal is adjusting testing criteria to account for this.\nThere might be very specific sets of knowledge for which rote memorization is appropriate, and for those, the air gapped testing may be appropriate. But I believe those are the exception rather than the rule. By and large, teaching kids to effectively utilize the tools that will be available to them is what we should be doing.", ">\n\nImagine learning where the only books are hand written.\nThe printing press took out a huge amount of repetitive labor in the learning process.\nAI/ChatGPT stands a good chance of removing a huge amount knowledge labor which stands between an idea and the end product. Learning to use the AI to best effect the Idea->End Product Chain is more important than worrying about memorizing formulae we will likely never need to remember. \nThe effort to restrict ChatGPT is just education system worrying about their Cheese Being Moved.", ">\n\nThis just doesn't make any sense to me. You're arguing that we shouldn't allow students to use tools they would have at their disposal in a real working environment, and for what? Why wouldn't you want students to use every tool at their disposal? How exactly is handicapping them helping them to understand the coursework?\nA much better approach would be to fundamentally alter how we teach to better prepare them for the workforce. Encouraging collaboration and creative problem solving skills is much more practical and effective.", ">\n\nChatGPT may pass the Bar, but I highly doubt it will replace lawyers or other professionals. \nThe whole point of credentialing is to drive accountability. Anyone can study the law and cite precedent without a law degree. Actually representing a client in a court of law requires oversight and knowledge. ChatGPT isn't perfect - it will make mistakes from time to time. So who is responsible when it makes a mistake? When is a client (who is not familiar with the law) supposed to know that a mistake has been made on their behalf? For this reason, until ChatGPT is literally perfect you're always going to need a credentialed professional to review the output.\nFor the record, I think ChatGPT is wonderful. But it's a tool that people will use, not a full-fledged replacement for professionals. My employer (a Fortune 500 company) has already rejected its use for internal projects. IT has the website blocked.", ">\n\nThe kids that are educated without its use will fall behind in business when faced with kids that are using it to its fullest extent.\nYou've successfully made an argument for people to succeed in a test that is worthless in the real world. Its parameters don't match.", ">\n\nThe best way to educate children is to teach them skills and strategies that will actually serve them in the workplace of the future. \nChatGPT already has reached the point of replacing humans (See Buzzfeed news). If ChatGPT can take the test or do the homework then what value is that education going to be to these students? Especially older students will quickly see rote memorization as a waste of time and so yes they probably will cheat if they have the opportunity. Trying to force these things to be “learned” and prove that knowledge by brute force banning things is going to be a costly uphill battle.", ">\n\nWhat if we modify how essays are written by students, by asking them to include citations (which is something ChatGPT can’t do)?\nWe can’t stop new tools from making old methods obsolete. But we can focus on enhancing critical thinking of students in a stepwise manner. When a new tool is created, think about how you can adapt rather than resist it.", ">\n\nWhy not just train an ai to spot ai written papers?", ">\n\nWhat about gradually putting more emphasis on oral assignments?", ">\n\nEverything you said makes perfect sense...IF the goal was to teach children simply how to write the perfect standard essay. But that is a very limited way of viewing education and what its real goal is. The real goal of education is to teach children how to think. To come up with the right questions, not just the right answers. In a world where a \"good enough\" essay on literally anything can be conjured as if by magic by a machine, what's the actual value of that exercise now? For a very long time teachers have used the essay as a way to evaluate how a person thinks. Now that a machine can write it for you, we need new ways to evaluate how students think. That's the real task we are facing. Fuck the essay, just like we ditched the slide rule for calculators and later computers, etc. Tools change but the real game remains the same: Think for yourself!", ">\n\nI'd say the best way would be to accept the reality of changing technology and reevaluating the approach we have towards education as a whole.\nGranted, I'd say that's only one half of the picture: reassessing how we conceive if jobs and labour in the face of increasing automation goes along with that, and I think neither really works without the other.\nBottom line is that human labour is more and more obsolete as time goes on, so human jobs will be less and less in demand (I'd argue moving away from a capitalistic system is the right call, but even if you don't, automation is still an incentive).\nSince a large part of the incentive of our current education system is \"prepare you for a job\" I think the whole thing is going to fall short in light of these kinds of systems developing.\nTheres lots of people now who pursue knowledge as a project of passion, rather than a means to an end, and I think moving to a system that supports and encourages that kind of ambition is the way to go.", ">\n\nI disagree. We should learn to use the tools we have efficiently. Otherwise you are not learning for your career but for some professors ego", ">\n\nThat’s not “education in the era of ChatGPT.” That’s education in the era before ChatGPT while we figure out what the world with ChatGPT will look like so we have some idea of what to do with it.\nThat’s also not “educating,” that’s just “assessment.” Assessment is simply a measuring system for education. As long as you think of the acquisition of knowledge and skill as requiring knowledge regurgitation and skill performance in isolation and divorced from context/individualized, then you’re going to end up at necessitating a kind of geofenced, Luddite assessment model. The training itself predicates the assessment method. How we assess is defined by how we teach, and vice versa.\nThe best assessment method to gauge understanding is, and always has been, conversation.\nAll we need to do is pair assessment with regular conversation between qualified teacher and student to determine if personal comprehension is present. Not an interview, not an interrogation — conversation. Problem solving performance contexts are also great revealer of internalized knowledge and skill.\nChatGPT is a relative nonissue if your approach to assessment is at all human.\nIt’s only a problem when you’re trying to mechanize and dehumanized education. “Rigorous” does not mean “mechanical.” We are going to have to trust the professional, knowledge- and skill-assessing judgements of humans who already know and can do.\nEducation reverts to having more emphasis on apprenticeship and mentorship models, where the relationship itself is part of the learning process. \n(The “accountability!” cranks are gonna love that…)", ">\n\nI have a strong suspicion that discussions like this, while very interesting, will be obsolete long before any changes can actually be implemented in schools. In fact, I'm pretty sure schools will be gone entirely in the near future.\nAs of right now, you can be taught almost any subject by an exceptionally well-spoken, fast and infinitely patient teacher called GPT to a university level, if not higher. Try it right now - go ask GPT to explain the political situation that allowed Alexander the Great to conquer Persia, or ask it to explain the raytracing algorithm. If there's a part you don't understand, ask it to clarify. You'll be amazed how accessible it makes advanced topics.\nNow, how long before we have VR software with a realistic-looking AI teacher, with an AI-generated voice, who can do the same thing, but respond to students' voices and use body language and visual demonstrations? Five years?\nHow long after that before this tech is cheap, and of such high quality that sending your kids to school will be a worse education?\nNow in, say, 20 years, we could have an AI system that takes a DNA sample, analyses a students genotype to understand what subjects they will be naturally good at, what education approaches will be most successful, and continuously improves its model of the student's behavior by observing them. It crafts a decades-long education journey tailored to the individual, and accompanies them the entire way.\nTeachers, as far as they've existed so far, don't have a chance.", ">\n\nAre you trying to test someone or teach them?\nIf the latter, why do you care about cheating? This reminds me of the ol' teachers who used to restrict calculators because \"you won't always have a calculator with you.\"", ">\n\nYou forget that for 99% of homework students could just copy each other's work. Having the answers out in the world accessible is not a new problem. You just make homework a small part of the grades and you make sure students understand it's important to actually do it or they won't do well on the tests.", ">\n\nThere are so many people that can’t do the basic math examples you mentioned somewhere and they went to school at a time when there were no calculators.\nOn the other hand I was allowed to use calculators in school pretty much the moment I left elementary school and I am really quite good at math even without assistance.\nTool usage is one of humanities key features and trying to work against it instead of finding ways to incorporate new technology into school and life seems backwards.", ">\n\nIronically the teacher will have to use an AI to decipher the \"hand written\" assignments.", ">\n\nYou can't force people to learn.", ">\n\nWhat about teaching how to think rather than how to memorize? Just a thought 💭", ">\n\nThey need to get rid of homework, and have students do their work while they're at school. It's awful, they just pile it on, even if a class only has a little homework that day, there's like 6 or 7 classes so it's a nightmare for students. Seems like the only way to prevent cheating is have them do work in class, so I hope for the students sake, they do that.", ">\n\nI’ll throw my idea into the ring, though we’re still a few years off from this technology:\nWe should have students interact with AI tutors that can prompt them questions and point out details. Then they can collaborate on assignments, and the AI tutor can give feedback and suggest snippets. The AI can evaluate their work and their engagement with the material.", ">\n\nOne of Transformers main applications is in search. Ie you get a set of embeddings you can compare the pairwise distances between embedding and get a list of scores that tell you which embeddings are most similar to the input. \nEssentially tools like google are made to reduce the search space for a given query collect likely links and then rerank the most likely results. \nChatgpt basically does this in a more direct way of searching through a space of potential responses. Basically trained on a task to predict next token given the previous tokens or fill in a mask\nTransformers permeate everything students use from the recommendation algorithms on TikTok Facebook, YouTube to search systems in google. \nIn my opinion students should absolutely not be taught to fear these tools tho I do agree they be tested in constrained environments to challenge them. Current systems should not be used to learn unless you have a clear understanding and are willing to check every word and check your reasoning. Future systems will be much better though so this problem isn’t going anywhere. \nIf anything there should be a push to make these ideas more interpretable to a younger audience and give them the tools to navigate an increasingly complex market of ideas. They should be aware of the limitations and how when they use a piece of software their actions and the actions of those around them are influencing what they see next. \nIt should be used and taught with rigor. \nIt’s programming 2.0", ">\n\nDude no; \nChatGPT is the computer. \nDo you want to be the education system that banned the computer and then wondered why all the other education systems output modern tech workers, while your education system kept outputting chimney sweeps and car factory workers?", ">\n\nHW only exists to make students practice, and generally is worth less than 20% of the grade in a class. If a student chooses to use chat GPT to bypass it then that’s the student’s loss.\nUltimately exams are what schools use to evaluate a students knowledge and I don’t think that’s going to change anytime soon", ">\n\nThere are already programs that check if something was written by an AI or not. Also no student I know actually uses chatGPT for major assignments because chatGPT doesn’t know every text to ever be published so it doesn’t understand the context, and most of the time will just bullshit an answer that’s incorrect.\nEveryone I know that uses chatGPT for school do so for either for assignments so small and simple that it doesn’t make sense to quarantine, or they use it as a more advanced google that can answer questions more accurately than a search engine could, essentially just saving time.\n(most) students are using chatGPT largely as a productivity and time management tool rather than to cheat.", ">\n\nThis is like saying “in the age of calculators, the only way to ensure kids learn maths is to ban calculators in school”. If looked at correctly, chatgpt is an effect multiplier, learning just has to be rejigged to have kids learn to do things that they can’t simply ask chatgpt to do for them.", ">\n\nLess course work and more exams is the future in a world with chatGPT.", ">\n\nChatGPT will be a big no issue soon. I work in a research field and this was something we worried about last year. As of now there are multiple tools and even more being developed that catch the use of ChatGPT. There has been research published that list ChatGPT as a co-author, but for most research, and use by students, it will simply be forbidden and will easily be caught as well. The program does well but it has a particular style that can be caught. Again it will be a non-issue soon.", ">\n\nThis is like forbidding people to use a calculator because it can give you the result instant. A better way is to teach them how to use the calculator, because its here now and won't go away. Same with GPT. Children can learn way better/faster with ChatGPD if used correctly. Imaging having a private teacher for free which helps you learning every time of the day.", ">\n\nLet me ask you this. If ChatGPT could complete a students whole assignment, what would that student have learned from doing that assignment on their own that won’t simply be replaced with ChatGPT by a employer in the future?\nEven if ChatGPT doesn’t replace workers for a decade, why teach students skills that will inevitably be replaced and leave said students jobless in a decade?\nChatGPT won’t only be used in the workforce either. Linus Tech Tips has a video showing how ChatGPT can help people learn new skills and do troubleshooting on their own. If I remember correctly, he manages to completely build a pc by only strictly following what ChatGPT tells him to. It even managed to suggest the best parts for that computers specific use case. It was nowhere near perfect, but in the future it will get there.\nSince ChatGPT is such a useful tool in the workforce and at home, I think it’s crucial we teach students how to use it instead of banning them from it. Maybe students should be given a problem and tasked to use ChatGPT to find the solution or have students attempt to learn a new topic with ChatGPT. I’m not a teacher, I just thought of those examples of the top of my head. I’m sure qualified teachers could think of better assignments than me.\nI could see ChatGPT helping a mechanic diagnose an issue so the mechanic could spend more time fixing the problem rather than diagnosing and I can think of a few examples in other jobs as well where ChatGPT will help a worker be more efficient and save more time.\nI think, if anything, we’re setting students up for failure by not teaching them about these tools that will take over the workforce and help in everyday life.", ">\n\nYou’ll still have to pass a test. Relax.", ">\n\nIt “fairs” extremely well? Maybe some additional time spent observing ChatGPT could actually benefit some", ">\n\nThere’s just no way you can use ChatGPT to do all of your work for you and be successful at any moderately high level of academic pursuit. Not without learning the material yourself, and if you’ve done that, I don’t think it matters so much whether you used chatGPT and for what along the way.\nFrankly if you start our using chatGPT early in school, you won’t even be able to ask the right questions in the right way and include the necessary refinements to do more complex and demanding assignments down the road. \nAlso, tests are still a thing aren’t they? ChatGPT doesn’t help you perform in person in a monitored environment - not in a way that would allow you to skip learning the material. I don’t really get this aspect of your cmv. As long as tests don’t allow access to ChatGPT, anyone who didn’t learn the material is going to be exposed..", ">\n\nThere are already programs that detect ChatGPT writing.", ">\n\nThe children who want to cheat will always find a way to do so. It doesn’t matter how much you do to restrict it, it’ll just make them find new means of doing so. \nSource: I did GCSE’s in the UK, AP in the US. Trust, kids will cheat even in sterile environments. Especially if it’s a huge room and there are few moderators. A lot of us are scared of repercussions but those who aren’t won’t let anything stand in there way—region and proctoring be damned.", ">\n\nI require them to complete an outline first. Outline must be submitted to me before I take the essay. Google doc lets you see that they write it and when each sentence was written. It’s helped.", ">\n\nCHATGPT is a tool, and in some applications (not all), it can help students do their homework. Consider the calculator. Do students not need to learn formulas and critical thinking just because they can punch numbers into calculators?\nNo, math is still a skill that is valuable if for no other reason then because it trains your brain to solve problems.\nOne of the things that surprises me is that ChatGPT can use words and explain things to students even when a teacher is not available or when there isn’t one. we should consider this an educational opportunity rather than a disadvantage.\nThere are so many amazing things we humans can do when we simply have tools to help us. ChatGPT is no different.", ">\n\nYou can’t force people to live in the past. Chat GPT is here to stay. Education now needs to focus on teaching people how to use AI, and how to develop a skill that can’t be replaced by AI.", ">\n\nHow about getting students engaged in what they’re learning and excited to learn. Find what they’re good at and double down on it. Don’t make school a fucking quarantine bubble. Socialize, allow them to teach and learn from each other. Replace the potential for cheating with collaboration assignments in person. “Children will cheat if given the opportunity” is such horse shit. If somebody doesn’t know or wasn’t taught something well then yea they’re gonna look to get it right so they can obtain approval. How about teaching them so they won’t cheat??", ">\n\nThats not it. I don’t have an answer for you, but thats not it.", ">\n\nHow about just have the kids do a presentation on \"their\" report with Q&A at the end. They'll have no choice but to know the info.... which is the point.", ">\n\nWell, making an AI that detects if something was made by an AI shouldnt be hard", ">\n\nI wonder if anyone has tried training a machine to look at assignments and give a confidence interval of the assignment being either human or machine in origin.", ">\n\nYeah we call that stuff examns...", ">\n\nThe problem with your suggested approach is that it just reinforces the current failures of the education system. It doesn't actually teach us the skills that you will be able to use in the field. \n\nYou can look up formulas for physics and you can double check online for any coding questions. Chat gpt is a tool and I think forbidding students from using it will just be a disservice to them and everyone in the future. It's not going to go away any time soon so how about instead of teaching children to cheat more effectively, we teach them how to use chat gpt to its full potential? It can speed up so many tasks to such a degree that students will be able to recieve more advanced education in the time that was saved by using chat gpt", ">\n\nI mean, there are plenty of good reasons already said, but wouldn't it just be easy to cheat. You get home, ask Chat.gpt for a result, print it out. Bring it with you to the school quarantine, copy it into the computer. (Unless you would like a full strip search of the students upon entering, which is wrong in so many ways)", ">\n\nI could use this in my program all I wanted and pass courses with perfect scores, and at the end of my degree I’d have a licensure exam that I’d fail cause I didn’t learn anything.", ">\n\nGreat idea! While let's just ignore the real world and keep our heads in the sand. Let's also get rid of computers and ink pens and go back to stone and chisel!", ">\n\nInstead of asking students to write ...ask them to spot the mistakes and correct the essays.\nThat requires way more knowledge and mastership.", ">\n\nI feel like this is a modern day equivalent to saying that now that the internet is available at the family computer, students must complete their work entirely under supervision.\nAI is here and more that is better is coming and people need to learn how to integrate with it rather than fight it. It's going to take some jobs. Just like the cotton gin and steam drill took work from people who then immediately transitioned to other work that the machine couldn't do and to running to machine itself. People will need to run ChatGPT. Feed it, verify its output, clean it up and submit the report based on CGPT4.0's write up. Individuals need to know the material, sure, but we can't really keep students off the internet and trying to do so just wastes resources and makes teachers pull their hair out.", ">\n\nI think the problem lies deeper. Humans and especially children want to learn and understand. One of the most common words a 5 y/o uses is \"why\". \"Why do airplanes fly? Why is the sun bright? Why can't I have candy? Why isn't the house collapsing? It is bigger than my sandcastle that fell over.\" And the education system should be ashamed of itself that it kills this curiosity and motivation of the children. I don't want to go too deep into possible solutions. Just one anecdote from myself:\nWe had to produce an educational video. For that we got 20 hours time. We worked around 30, met at my apartment and filmed after a day off homeschooling. Nobody thought of cheating with chatgpt because we have the script our character. On the other hand: I should colour a heart now and I don't want to, so I don't do it.\nEveryone has their video and colouring schematics and we should encourage the prior to the latter, making the demand for cheating less important \nAlso we sent around our homeworks all the time. The concept of homework isn't great at all", ">\n\nHomeschool. Problem solved.", ">\n\nSorry, u/Own-Listen1552 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nHow is ChatGPT different than what Math teachers had to go through when calculators become a thing?\nAt first, they banned them \"because the students have to learn the material!\" \nStudents rebelled because \"We'll always have a calculator available.\"\nEventually, teachers relented and now allow calculators in the class.\nDo you see the trajectory of ChatGPT going any different?\nAs for ChatGPT improving, if everybody is using it then it won't be able to improve because the only new input will just be reinforcing feedback from its own work.\nAs for children cheating, how is using ChatGPT different than any other sort of plagiarism detection that teachers already have to deal with? Also, the makers of ChatGPT also provide a tool that will tell you if a particular work product was produced by it. Isn't that good enough of a deterrent?\nAir gapping the kids from legitimate research material seems to be a bit extreme to me.", ">\n\nWhen I was young, calculators weren't allowed. Later, we were allowed to use them, but only on some tests.\nPersonally, I thought that was stupid. It's like training a carpenter, but not allowing power tools.\nAI is here to stay. Teach them how to use that useful tool to maximum effect, instead of teaching a work method which will likely be obsolete within five years.", ">\n\nHow bout not putting children in a prison for 8 hours, but teach them how to learn and getting them interested and motivated for school. My biggest problem in School was how boring most of the teachers taught the material. Maybe dont let every random highly educated person be a teacher if they cant work with kids. When i had the right teacher he sort of started my hunger for knowledge about the themes he was teaching. Plus kids and teenagers hate doing what theyre told to do so i dont think that is a solution at all.", ">\n\nAgree that airgapped areas are necessary but the best way to educate children in the era of ChatGPT is to develop a ChatGPT based tool that quizzes children on homework they hand in.", ">\n\nMy moms a parent for middle schoolers, she says it's happened already a lot this semester, but the thing is, most can tell just from the sentence structure and fluidity, sometimes they are just still wrong answers or definitely not the answer they needed." ]
> Let the mentally oppressive and comically outdated state educational apparatus die and have it be replaced with something better. The internet has changed everything - and now these bloated, outdated, and corrupt institutions exist only to hold us back like some parasitic vestige of times past.	[ "/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^\| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.", ">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?", ">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.", ">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?", ">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.", ">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?", ">\n\nYou mean a grade?", ">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication", ">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.", ">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)", ">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.", ">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.", ">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.", ">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.", ">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?", ">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.", ">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.", ">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.", ">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.", ">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.", ">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.", ">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.", ">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.", ">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.", ">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.", ">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.", ">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.", ">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.", ">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use", ">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.", ">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.", ">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.", ">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.", ">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.", ">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.", ">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.", ">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).", ">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.", ">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.", ">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.", ">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.", ">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.", ">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.", ">\n\n\nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \n\nWhy? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it. \n\nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \n\nWhy? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? \nLet's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project. \n\nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.\n\nTotally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator.", ">\n\nFor the most part, knowledge workers perform a given amount of work in a given amount of hours, and the number of them hired by a company is TotalHoursNeeded/NumHoursPerEmployee. E.g. if you have 100 manyears of work to get done in a typical year, you employ 100 people.\nChat GPT isn't going to \"replace\" people wholesale, because as you say someone still needs to supervise it. But it looks to be on track to increase the productivity of programmers (can write a first draft of code and finds many of the bugs instantly). \nSame for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones. \nSo now the TotalNeeded is decreased by some percentage, let's say 10% to start. Now you only need 90 human programmers to do that same work. With 25% efficiency gain, you need 75. With 50%, 50. Etc. \nOr take translation jobs. Today, an editor spends roughly 3 minutes per word editing machine translated text, and 1 minute per word editing human-translated text. As long as editors are more expensive per hour than first translation people, it still makes sense much of the time to hire translators, because the software isn't free. \nBut the graph of machine translation \"efficiency\" is trending towards taking the same amount of time to edit as a human translator. As soon as that's hit, there's literally no reason to hire human translators, only editors. \nAnd if the editing time goes down to 30 seconds/word because of further AI assistance to the editor, you only need half as many of those.", ">\n\nThere is currently two better solutions being worked on - one of which is already being used to some degree. \nThe first is ChatGPT developers themselves making moves to make AI written works to be identified by \"watermark\" or similar. I don't thi k this one has taken effect at all yet. \nAnother is by a separate dev team that allows teachers to use software to determine the amount of an essay, for example, that is written by AI what the likelihood of any one sentence or paragraph to have been written by AI. This allows the teachers to use discretion when determining if the student used the AI in a way that they find acceptable or not. This way instead kf running from the scary AI educators can actually utilize tyhe AI with students to help them develop their writing and other communications.", ">\n\nWhat about kids with transportation issues? When I was in school I knew kids that drove almost an hour each way to get there. I certainly couldn’t have asked my parents to drop everything to take me all the way to school so I could do my homework if I forgot. Bus schedules? Do you think schools want to waste more money by burning more gas for extra routes? I understand where you’re coming from, but for a fair amount of children—especially in poorer, more rural areas—that getting to school and back is such a delicate balancing act that such a thing would just punish them.", ">\n\nI've seen a few key things from academics testing out ChatGPT (I have not signed up myself):\n\nIt tends to produce confident, convincing nonsense. It doesn't actually understand what it's writing about, and I hear it shows.\nIt makes up citations. Real authors in the field, real journals... but made-up titles. Things like that, since, again, it doesn't actually understand citations.\n\nThis suggests that, for assignments requiring the demonstration of genuine, in-depth understanding, and not merely the ability to summarize facts, ChatGPT will fail.\nA similar example that you bring up in the comments is programming cheat sheets into calculators - but for well-designed engineering exams (including the licensure exams, at least in the US), cheat sheets are fine and often either allowed or provided. A well-designed exam tests the ability to apply principles, not knowledge of equations, so a cheat sheet is harmless, or even allows the exam to work better (since people aren't distracted with memorizing equations).", ">\n\nThere are three criticisms that I have of this approach. \n\n\nShould we not teach to the environment that we live in? Yes, education often imposes arbitrary constraints like time tests but for research and reports why not let people use and work around all resources? If you can work around chat gpt to work efficiently, then do it. You learn what it can and can’t do and how to use it effectively as a tool. \n\n\nCan chatGPT on it’s own actually write a good essay? From what I have seen it can pull together a few sources. It can generally write fluff based on other things that it has seen. But it struggles to write analysis. It can’t interrogate a source or make value judgements. It could be useful for doing some filler or providing ideas but if to do an actual report, I think it would be insufficient. \n\n\nAn assignment that can be done using chatgpt is probably boring. Here I am writing an essay for no reason other than I find it interesting to discuss this topic. Perhaps, we arent giving students interesting enough assignments or we are overloading them to the point that they don’t have the time to engage? If chatGPT turns out to be an issue maybe it’s more of an indictment of the structures and norms of education.", ">\n\n\n\nhomework in the form of essays, take home tests, coding assignments, would be completed on school grounds. \n\n\nCongratulations, you've invented the \"cram school\".\nI'd recommend reading through your post again and actually thinking about the things you've said. Because essentially, you're merely advocating for the wholesale elimination of homework and for education outside of that to remain totally unchanged. It's almost literally, \"Make the school day 30% longer\".\nMy solution to the \"problem\" of students potentially using ChatGPT to cheat on homework: I don't think you need a hilariously convoluted system of homework \"boiler rooms\" redolent of national security apparatus, that requires schools to adopt ruinously expensive and disruptive technological and administrative changes.\nIt would be sufficient if we institute a system whereby teachers are encouraged to, let's say... \"test\" their students, whether by regular written exams or by talking to them in what I'll call \"classes\", to ensure they understand the material they've been assigned to learn.\nThis method ensures that students cannot use AI homework bots to coast through classes (since they'll literally be found out the very next class), and has the added benefit of not adding three hours to every teacher's day.", ">\n\nWhat about pen and ink?", ">\n\narguably I can just copy a ChatGPT output by hand. So I think that is a first level measure, but not a complete solution.", ">\n\nIt's a better solution than prison just because the curriculum can't keep up with technology.\nWhen calculators arrived on everyone's phone and everyone's pocket did you advocate for the same solution? Unlikely, so why only now with this system?", ">\n\nWell I did and I was. When I was studying engineering in the 80s we routinely could not arrive at exams with a calculator. Even then calculators were programmable enough to allow students to write cheat sheets in calculator memory.\nIt forced us to memorize equations, principals of engineering, and independent thinking. I’m a better engineer because I did.", ">\n\nSo you're what, almost 60? And you think what's best for children is to be like you? Don't you think you may be a bit out of touch?\nAlso, your view was about K12 students, not engineering students.", ">\n\nNo. As I replied, leaning on tools as a crutch all your life will limit your ability and function as a human. For example, you could argue that basic math isn’t necessary. As matter of fact that was an argument years ago with the advent of calculators.\nHowever, humans should be able to exist and functions without a digital crutch. You should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator. You should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google. There are basic elements of duration necessary since we are all still wet grey matter.", ">\n\n\nYou should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator\n\nBut why?\n\nYou should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google\n\nAgain, why?\nWhere do you get your \"should\" from?\nI have basically all human knowledge in my hand, every equation or conversion I'll ever need day to day, even every language I'll likely ever encounter. Why shouldn't I leave my brain free to think about what it wants and to use my incredible resource as and when it's needed?\nDo you envision some Saw-like situation where you're locked to a wall and need to solve maths equations at pain of death?", ">\n\nThe less you use your brain the less likely your body is to maintain it. Our body functions through a use or lose it principle. Just look people who lose movement function/muscle just by being bedridden for a long time. Our brain is not different.\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.", ">\n\nIs wasting resources on process you can deletage outside not using your brain? You free up that space to put to what you decide is important.\n\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.\n\nThe weakest man with a gun can take out the strongest bodybuilder.", ">\n\nAnd if you decide Tik tok and Netflix are important? How do you think that will affect the cognitive ability of kids?\nI didn't mention strength nor physical strength. And even then the strongest man with a gun will probably take out the weakest man with a gun.(An actual fair comparison)", ">\n\nCouldn't chatgpt (or somesuch AI) be asked \"Hey - did you write this?\" and nip this sort of thing in the bud?", ">\n\nNo, Chat GPT doesn't remember everything it's said, the potential things it could say are huge and even if someone wrote something that Chat GPT might say, it could be a coincidence.", ">\n\nWell, strike that idea then.\nStill though - there must be some way to use AI to deal with this. \"set a thief to catch a thief\" and all that.", ">\n\nChat GPT (and most generative AIs) use GANs to generate content. \nIn laymen's terms (and extremely simplified as it's above my level of understanding) a GAN is 2 AI systems competing against each other, a creator AI that creates content and a checker AI that decides if the content was genuine or made by the other AI. \nSo any automated way to tell if it's AI generated can be built into the checker AI in future versions and the creator AI will learn to avoid whichever features the checker AI is spotting.", ">\n\nChatGPT is just another mechanism for reducing the need for labor, and it's not going away. \nChildren will need to be educated in both how to make effective use of it (for as long as it's not sufficient to completely eliminate mental labor), and also in the ethics of not using it. Always forcing them to write in airgapped places isn't going to do that, it just makes them resent it. \nAlso: essay writing on a scale needed to really learn long-form writing is not very amenable to doing in an airgapped classroom, because honestly we're not using dead-tree sources of information anymore already, so doing their research pretty much has to include doing it on line. \nBut really: laborious manual long-form essay writing is going to go the way of penmanship and looking things up in a library as an unneeded skill very quickly. We need children to adjust to that reality of the modern world rather than pretending it will go away. \nPeople are still needed (for now) to do the important part of writing essays without doing the laborious bit that ChatGPT automates anyway: deciding what to write, and editing it into a convincing and well-written form. \nForcing kids to spend a lot of time learning how to write the basic bulk part of essays is a lot like teaching them how to make buggy-whips in shop class: a pointless exercise. \nIt would be better to give them all prewritten ChatGPT essays and have them learn the limitations and capabilities.", ">\n\nIs ChatGPT really that much more effective than just grabbing things off Wikipedia? I was asking it things about elections and it was just Wikipedia from two years ago", ">\n\nThe answer is NEVER to limit technology. It’s to teach the new generation how to use that technology to achieve the same goal.\nIt’s pointless to ban computers and teach the memorization of dates in history class. It’s much more productive to teach online research skills so that if an individual needs to know the date of a particular moment in history, they can reliably Google it.\nChatGPT is the same. It renders writing essays as pointless, and it necessitates the teachers to adapt to new teaching styles, such as teaching the skills on how best to manipulate ChatGPT to return the information you need.", ">\n\nI was banned from using programming calculators when I studied engineering in the 80s during exams. It forced the students to all be on the same level playing field and forced us to actually know the equations, their applications, and the processes of whatever engineering course I was taking.\nIt made us better engineers.", ">\n\nHow does handicapping you make you a better engineer? If I put you and an engineer trained with technology in the same room together, who do you think would accomplish the task faster?", ">\n\nThe handicapped engineer, easily. The point of forcing students to actually learn the material is so that they understand how to reason about the underlying processes when they need to troubleshoot something going wrong, and understand the tradeoffs between approaches and how to select the best one for the task. \nOnce you understand things deeply you don't actually need training in doing things quickly because it's immediately intuitive how to apply a technological process to save time. The guy that leaned heavily on technology is basically fucked if he has to use a technique or software that he didn't specifically train on since he doesn't have a good foundation to abstract from. It would be more appropriate to call this person a technician.", ">\n\nThe purpose of calculators is to do the menial part of the work, not to solve whole processes. The engineer that learned with calculators likely knows how to select the right process to solve a problem, but uses the calculator to do the math faster and with fewer errors.", ">\n\nAt the college level, we’re not talking about tools to add and multiply. We’re talking about tools like Wolfram Alpha that do entire symbolic manipulations for you. If I took a calculus class and on all the assignments used Wolfram Alpha to find derivatives, do you think I would have learned anything?\nThat is what ChatGPT is doing for essays", ">\n\nThere are things called pencil and paper.", ">\n\nAs I said, this is the first line defense. However as I already commented to another user. I can simply hand copy ChatGPT output. Essentially not doing my own independent research, writing, coding, and studying.", ">\n\nWhy don't you consider that research? \nThe first source was the best. It's incredibly efficient research IMO.", ">\n\nThe idea of tool removal has always been flawed. From calculators to chat GPT and beyond. If your test is so flimsy that a simple tool invalidates it then the test is poorly built. Test shouldn't be simple busywork tasks, they should require thinking, problem solving, complex thought. If it's just a game of memorization that can be cheated by answers on a paper, you've built a bad test.\nover memorization (which is what our current school systems teach) is not only unhelpful, but also harmful. We live in an era of wikipedia being a reliable source, of vast access to tools both online and phsycial. We should be teaching kids they should do the work but with the help of those tools, not despite them.\nThe main issue with your argument is that based on what you've said, i can assume you think the current school system is a good one but so many studies have shown that at least here in the US, the school systems are some of the worst in the world. It's this memorize, ignore tools, singular focus mentality that plays such a big role.\nIf we were more creative with education, incorporating tool utilization into the learning process, we'd likely have a major improvement to our educational successes. I could go on about how the education system prefers certain kinds of students over others, and how many students are left behind simply because they don't learn like other kids and are therefore punished, but I won't. All I'll say is that more restrictions on how and what kids learn isn't going to help them learn more or better.\nand in 15 years when chat GPT is a part of daily life in every single company on the planet in some way or another (which I'm beyond certain it will be), kids who were taught how to properly utilize it will have just such a huge advantage in the workforce over those who weren't", ">\n\nRather than attempt to find ways to prevent new technology from interfering with existing pedagogy, shouldn't we review and revise pedagogy as new technology develops? \nIf a chat AI program can write these things, what is the point of having humans repeatedly do the same work? We don't expect people to use an abacus when doing math, or limit their research to what's in the library card catalogue, or require printed paper publications as essay resources; we adapted to the calculator, and to the internet and search engines. So too should we adapt to things like ChatGPT, not by trying to pretend it doesn't exist, but by finding ways to incorporate it into a more holistic approach to learning.\nRather than chain kids to an airgapped room on school grounds outside of school hours to do homework that's of dubious educational value in the first place, we should take this as an opportunity to refocus schooling on in-class engagement and direct instruction. ChatGPT and programs like it are showing us yet another thing we as humans can outsource to our technology, so why struggle to do things in a more difficult and inefficient way?", ">\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\nIn addition, AI is only as good as the data it is fed. You must still be able to do the work on your own to analyze when the AI is giving valid outputs (garbage in, garbage out). This is especially true, when AI runs the risks of being owned or operated by those with a specific agenda. Can you imagine the trouble that would result if people relied on AI to determine who to vote for, but someone was able to pay the operators to have the AI promote them?\nRelying on AI to do our work for us is a distillation of an appeal to authority fallacy on a large scale (if the AI says it, it must be true).", ">\n\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\n\nThis is something I worry about A LOT when it comes to AI. Our collective understanding of the subjects that we usually classify as \"the humanities\" is constantly evolving as we learn more, and especially as a more diverse set of people are allowed to study, research and put forth opinions and arguments.\nImagine if students were outsourcing all their history, psychology, sociology and philosophy homework to a chatbot with a 1950s understanding of those subjects.\nImagine doctors outsourcing psych patient diagnoses to a chatbot with the same understanding.\nOn an arguably less \"serious\" but still critically important moral and political topic, imagine if all/most videogame art was outsourced to an AI engine with a 1990s sensibility for female characters. Same for all kinds of representation and diversity.\nHow about politics and political science in general... ha!\nEtc, etc etc.\nIt is NOT the case that we already have discovered all the true answers to the big questions, and we can merely turn to a \"knowledge calculator\" like ChatGPT to spit out the truth.\nEven if AI can pretty accurately reflect the discourse of the day, as it is currently understood and accepted, our collective knowledge and culture will stagnate if we do not actively participate in developing it, and we will all pay the price for that.", ">\n\nThese are all moralistic arguments that ultimately don’t mean anything.", ">\n\nI would say they are more epistemic arguments, which do matter greatly in the context of education (which is what the op was referring to).", ">\n\nAre any of these things mentioned actually realistic concerns? Someone is going to train an AI bot to generate 90s female art characters with big tits?\nNo. Lol and even if someone did, who cares?", ">\n\nConsidering how many people believe obviously fake stories that have no supporting evidence (and in spite of contrary evidence), yes, I believe they are very real concerns.\nIf an AI says we should use Brawndo in farming because its got what plants crave (electrolytes), we should probably be able to justify it with reasoning beyond \"the AI says so.\"", ">\n\nWho is suggesting we do anything “just because an AI said so”? \nDo you read books and think everything in it is true “because the book says so”?", ">\n\nHow do you determine if what the book/ai said is false?\nYou would typically do it through a process of research and discovery.\nPeoples' ability to do research and discovery will be greatly diminished if we rely on AI to do those things for us (which is what the previous posters were suggesting).\nTherefore, reliance on AI will lead to us losing the ability to discern if the results of what the AI is saying is correct.", ">\n\nWhat? Lol that doesn’t make any sense at all. \nIt is not like if we use AI then all previous knowledge is simply forgotten or lost. It’s all still there.", ">\n\nForcing homework at school makes that \"not homework\", and this approach has never worked. You cant reject change, it never works. Every time there has been a game changing event, people adapted. Those who tried to reject change disappeared. Horse carriages disappeared from roads because something else replaced it. Some people supposedly rejected progress, but they are lying to themselves, they still use modern tech or services at some point.\nAnyway, the change is here, and it made essays irrelevant. Time to find another way to test people skills. \nGive it a little time though. ChatGPT costs a ginormous amount of money to run and will not stay free for long either.", ">\n\nIt's not just ChatGPT, the actual innovation is not the interface but lies in algorithms that can recreate natural language of similar quality with smaller data samples. There are also OpenSource datasets like ThePile, etc. so even if OpenAI moves to a paid model (and they will, quickly. You can already sign up to be first in line for the API), there will be other free providers.", ">\n\nHaving coded AIs, I disagree. ChatGPT is a regular trained AI. The novelty is the scale of the operation, and the fact there is a public API.\nNo one ever spent that much money on resources to run and train an AI publicly. I am pretty sure google has done something similar with user data sets to make their search engine and general ecosystem.\nI wish there was a way to have algorithms working with smaller data sets and produce similar results, but it kind of does not work that way.", ">\n\nThere are already tools to identify ChatGPT generated texts. Such tools will improve as another use of literally the same technology.\nJust as teachers submit essays for identifying plagiarism, teachers will submit essays for identifying AI-generated text. \nFurther, a focus could change from grading students on what they know to grading students' ability to ask meaningful, content-based questions about the subject. After all, knowing facts isn't particularly valuable as a skill. Integrating facts and discovering valuable questions is still something that remains a uniquely human skill. And is where people will continue to add value as AI becomes more advanced.", ">\n\nStudents have always been able to 'cheat' on work done outside the classroom, by copying or somehow getting others to do their work for them, even before the internet. Yes with more advanced modern technology it is easier but this has always been a concern. \nAs regular learning environments like supervised classrooms are already 'quarantined' in the way you descibe you are fundementally just suggesting an increase in learning hours as a supplement to homework. This has been suggested by many for various reasons but it would overall cuase more issues than it fixes. It increases work load on teachers and administrators, stretching already thin educational budgets, and forces increased mental strain on children. It would limit their ability to do other recreational and out of ciriculum activities. This would be disruptive and controlling when the quantity of teaching and learning time that children recive is already considered sufficiant for a good education.", ">\n\nHell the only thing stopping me from using ChatGPT regularly for my work now is that it's always at capacity.", ">\n\nApply tests that are hand written, doesnt matter how a person obtains the knowledge, actually learning the subject is most important thing.", ">\n\nThere is no amount of ChatGPT that could influence a good old oral exam where the teacher evaluates the understanding via a little chat.", ">\n\nSo tired of this view. We shouldn’t be fighting technology. Teach kids to use the resources they have to find answers. It’s such a waste of 12 years of school, teaching kids to memorize facts and follow rules. \nInstead, every test should be open book and reward the best answers. Ask the kids to show their work or explain their thought process so we reward understanding of a topic rather than memorization of steps or text.", ">\n\n20 years ago, there were already homework communities and learn groups. Even from the publishers of school books and with free access to tutors. Ok, they didnt do the final homework for me, but gave me a great starting point.\nBeing the kid who transcribes a wiki page was already stupid back then when others could call you out:\nBut I guess the actual problem is lack of digital literacy with teachers, they're always 5-10 years behind.", ">\n\nIf you are testing skills that can be done by free tools on the internet, then you are testing irrelevant skills.\nThe best way to educate kids is to test for skills they need, not skills they objectively don't.\nI was able to witness a couple of universities adapt to tests during quarantine, and follow reports on how the new methods would be used going forward.\nThe results where thus:\nMass offline testing is incredibly cost efficient (one examiner per ~300 students), but the tests results are a poor indicator of real world performance.\nOne to One testing is incredibly expensive, but can, when done right, test actual understanding and performance.\nBoth will be useful, of course. Mass testing is most useful when used in a way that students aren't incentivized to cheat, such as when framed as practice.", ">\n\nOne of the upsides of needing to prevent this kind of tech from cheating assignments is that teachers should focus on having students be able to do their homework at school. (As a former teacher, we were trying to do this already- no more than 15 min of homework per class). \nI dont think we need to do quite what you say. We just need to limit outside electronics and have in-person classrooms or computer labs with programs designed to be AI-proof. \nI have ALWAYS believed that cell phones/internet watches should be stored in school lockers (at most) and never allowed anywhere else on campus during the school day. If anyone needs to contact the students they contact the desk who relays their message/other need. Many schools already do this.", ">\n\n∆\nI agree with this. It would help.", ">\n\nThank you!", ">\n\nThat is utterly pointless.\nThere is no reason to limit the available tools.\nThis just reminds me of the entire \"you won't have a calculator wherever you go\" argument.\nSchool should instead put a focus on responsibly using available tools.", ">\n\nAnd if students choose to use them irresponsibly, what should schools do?\nAnd can you please define what constitutes responsible use? Because despite knowing about plagiarism, people still copy and paste from the internet. Perfect abstinence is easier than perfect moderation after all.", ">\n\nJust return to hand written essays and have more oral exams.", ">\n\n∆l\nActually of all comments having oral exams compliments my post and I agree with you. Enjoy the delta.", ">\n\nIn a Faraday cage.", ">\n\nIf children can just generate work with ChatGPT, it simply shows that children are not being taught anything valuable. (Once ChatGPT responses can be generated in almost unlimited amounts at very low cost, it necessarily means those responses are of low value)\nInstead shouldn't we be teaching children to provide more valuable outcomes that ChatGPT can't replicate?", ">\n\nBeing able to do on your own what ChatGPT does with access to an immense amount of data and processing power is valuable. The actual writing isn't valuable, obviously, but it would be silly to expect it to be. It's just a side effect of practice, you spend time making things of little or no value to build up the skills you'll need to make something that actually matters. That's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\nI think you'd be hard pressed to teach a class of children to outperform ChatGPT in writing without ever asking them to write something that could also be done via AI. What would that even look like?", ">\n\n\nThat's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\n\nIt is a problem. That is why I hated math class until 2nd year of university.", ">\n\nDid you start discovering novel math results in your second year of university, or was that just the point at which you first encountered problems you found interesting, despite the fact that someone else had already solved them before? Thinking back the class you didn't hate, do you think it should be removed if someone can construct an AI to give all the answers you gave?", ">\n\nThis is only a method for evaluating students, it doesn't do anything to educate them.\nChatgpt is potentially a great tool for education but trying to find complex ways around it for homework is pointless. When testing fact retention is required using school/university computers with no web browsing makes sense. For any other test or situation it's a tool that might be used.", ">\n\nI understand OPs concern. That said, I do not think you can create true quarantine for a multitude of reasons. \nThe biggest one is probably time. I worked through high school and university. Because I lived in the middle of nowhere it was about a 30 min drive to high school and then an hour to uni. Having to stay at these quarantine zones to complete assignments would have been hell on my schedule, car, and wallet. \nYou said it yourself, if someone is going to cheat, they will cheat. If I had to do the work in a quarantine zone, what exactly stops me from doing the actual work on my computer at home, printing it all out, and then just writing that into the computer at the quarantine zone? Unless you want to try having students write an entire essay in their hour long class? There has to be a point where they go home and then this falls apart.", ">\n\nThere are already lots of ways to cheat in homework and mostly our steps to deal with that amount to the honour system, and by university level, automated plagiarism detection (which can be quite easily avoided). The point you \"won't argue\" that people will cheat if given the opportunity is probably the actual crux of what's wrong with your suggestion and the part that needs a big [citation needed]. Concluding that the majority of people are fundamentally dishonest is a big assumption to handwave away. \nIf you want an education, cheating is stupid. Ultimately you might get a paper qualification out of it but you'll have actually learned nothing - you won't hold up long against someone who has done it properly when you actually have to apply the skills. Or if you do, then the assignments weren't that crucial to the learning in the first place.", ">\n\nMany of the things I learned in school were largely irrelevant. I couldn't use a calculator to do long division. After I passed those early elementary school years I never did long division again. I wouldn't even argue learning the long division algo is mandatory. It's nice to have learnt it I guess, but I spent way too many hours on it. I can see learning fundamentals of essay writing, etc, are great, but why can't we just evolve to learn more effective things in life? ChatGPT should be used as a tool, not viewed as a detriment.", ">\n\nIt'd suggest that the best way to educate them is to embrace ChatGBT and teach them to use it well. Your method is a bit like teaching kids to do math without calculators or accounting without excel or financial software. There is some value, but it runs out very quickly and you're at a social and competetive disadvantage for taking some archane principled approach to education that is more of a defense of \"how we used to do it\".\nI'm old enough to remember when using a word processor was sometime forbidden for reasons of fairness - that seems entirely disconnected now from doing good work and it's almost hard to envision the thought process of those who thought everything should be hand written for students. \nIsn't the kid who is amazing at utilizing tools like ChatGBT going to do much better in the world than the one who does not? Your idea of \"proper education\" would easily regress back to needing to do all subjects scrawled in dirt with sticks and grunted in non-standardized language.", ">\n\nOR, chatgpt will be a great boon to the entire education system:\nIncreased accessibility: ChatGPT and other AI-powered systems can provide education to individuals who otherwise would not have access to it, due to geographical, financial, or other barriers.\n\nPersonalized learning: ChatGPT can provide personalized education experiences based on each student's strengths, weaknesses, and learning style.\n\n24/7 availability: ChatGPT can operate 24/7, providing students with access to education at any time, anywhere, which can be especially beneficial for those with demanding schedules or for individuals in remote areas.\n\nScalability: ChatGPT can provide education to a large number of students simultaneously, which could help to address the shortage of teachers and resources in some areas.\n\nCost-effectiveness: ChatGPT can be a more cost-effective option for providing education compared to traditional methods, as it does not require physical classrooms or teachers.\n\nImproved student engagement: ChatGPT can provide interactive, engaging learning experiences that can hold students' attention and foster deeper learning.\n\n--Source: ChatGPT", ">\n\nThere a lots of places where texts and exams are “open book”. The questions have to be written differently, and the point is that you’re not testing someone’s ability to memorize, but rather their ability to understand. This is a more difficult test to write, so in theory AI could force education to improve since everyone would a virtual tutor with them at all times.", ">\n\nI'm a teacher and I've been thinking a lot about this the last couple months. Changes within the education system/curriculum/syllabus/retraining of teachers will take far too long to keep up with the ease of access to, and success of, chatgpt and AI in general. \nThe only solution moving forward both short and long term is to embrace it, there is no stopping it now anyway and if we don't all want to be out of a job in 5 years we need to - \n- demonstrate feasible/moral/ethical use of such tools\n- create more opportunities for collaborative learning/hands-on/problem solving tasks and ones that increase communication skills between peers. \nHow this applies to each individual, specific task will vary and must require a lot of creativity and trial and error, but I think relying too heavily on your department of education to handle this (or most 'boots on the ground' problems) will ultimately only degrade a students experience and ability for learning.", ">\n\nI'm with you on what you're trying to accomplish. I just don't know that it's the \"best\" way. \nFor instance, how is homework performed in school superior to trusting the kids to learn the material, which would then be tested by oral exam? And yes, I do believe that asking a student to verbally explain a topic is a really good way to gauge mastery.", ">\n\nThere is not a hope in hell that we'll go back to hand written stuff. That's not how technology works. As the music companies. There are better ways to show you know a subject, for sure, than the current out of-date ones. That's for sure. Have you ever taken an on-line exam?", ">\n\nI argue to let them use chatGPT as it will be their future. This is similar to my generations \"you'll never walk around with a calculator so learn math.\" The future children will grow into a society where work means utilizing AI tech to help them thrive. If chatGPT helps them write an essay, and it's good, it means they're using resources. I agree, however, that we should supplement this with actual reading and writing.", ">\n\nI would argue that most of time that ChatGPT and similar technologies is going to be an issue is in 8-12 grade and college.\nThis technology is not going away, and it's only going to improve. Personally I would treat it like calculators, audio books and spell check.\nTech kids how to use the technology properly. Sure it's somewhat handy to calculate numbers in your head, but having the ability to do math in your head does not give you much of an advantage in today's world and not being able to doesn't hurt you much. But it's still critical to know formulas and how to peace together algebraic statements and word problems. \nKnowing how to spell properly is less important than knowing proper word usage - most times you're writing something it can be spell-checked in real time. Sure it's \"terrible that today's kids...\" don't know how to spell... but it's not going to affect their career. \nEnter ChatGPT - same thing. Should I spend the time to write a white paper on the changing advertising landscape to alert my boss about the a potential seismic shift in advertising revenue, or should I ask ChatGPT to write it? As a user I have to understand its limits and potential copywrite issues, but even more importantly how to verify that what it writes is correct and targeting the right audience. Is data from before 2020 going to be recent and accurate enough for my thesis? How do I supplement the discussion with real-world data? \nThis is our new reality. We should be learning how to use the tools properly, not trying to figure out to lock it down (which frankly makes as much sense as locking down the use of calculators or spell check).", ">\n\nI think there are already apps in place that are able to detect AI generated text (Read this article).\nAlso, I think a better method would be to simply have a database of ChatGPT (could be encrypted) generated text and make it available to already existing software that is use to detect plagiarism (this is just an exemple amongst many)", ">\n\nFrankly I don’t think high schoolers and below should be given homework or tests at all. One learns magnitudes better through exploration as opposed to mindless repetition. Engage with these kids intellectually, make them free thinking Athenians, not bags of knowledge of which they have no idea how to use.\nDoes it not surprise anyone that we train people for over a decade in intellect yet hardly have any intellectuals?", ">\n\nI would argue that society would be better off spending resources on teaching children how to use this tool effectively. Knowing how to get the right answer is what matters in this world.", ">\n\nThen answer this: Well why learn math at all? Seriously.\nWhy learn he concept of subtraction let alone division? I could and society has argued that with the advent of digital calculators. \nYet we learn it. \nLater we use calculators to take the mundane and already known processes to the next level. We abstract away the mundane. \nAs a EE having worked and am working on products you may be using right now to read this, when I develop new silicon and chips I don’t break out Karnaugh maps and lay down circuit using a T square and stencils of gates. But I sure the hell know what I’m doing and expect the tools to do for me. \nTeaching fundamentals of reading, writing, arithmetic, essays, research are just that fundamental.", ">\n\nI’d argue that the vast majority don’t need anything beyond basic math anyways. \nGo ask the average adult if they know the quadratic equation and what it means and you’d probably be disappointed.", ">\n\nChatGPT is here to stay, you'd better advocate for teaching people how to make the most of it and use it wisely instead of pretending it doesn't exist.\nOne of my favourite teachers always told students to use the best tools there are.", ">\n\nI think it depends completely on the topic. In my field of study, it’s fairly easy to come up with term paper assignments that the bot would be useless for. \nLooking back at the paper I wrote last year, I don’t see how any current bot could have helped, as it isn’t able to read or summarize specific sources (yet?).\nAn example of the type of assignments we get is “Discuss the role of state capacity in x and x conflict in light of (specific research paper)‘s dimensions of state capacity - do your findings confirm the findings of (authors), why or why not?\nThis way of combining literature made it difficult even for me to be on top of it, as there were no sources that had attempted this exact combination - it has to be original. \nAlso, I find it’s the best way to learn, because you have to rely on your own judgement and there are no shortcuts, even asking the professor was unhelpful as he wasn’t too familiar with the details.", ">\n\nThis is not the best way.", ">\n\n\nThese homework rooms would have Internet connected computers for use but access to ChatGPT would be filtered and blocked.\n\nThis wouldn't be feasible, there's far too many roundabout ways to still access ChatGPT. Security measures like domain filtering are just unproductive games of whack-a-mole. \nEdit: removed all the other stuff I wrote, as those points have already been mentioned in previous top-level comments.", ">\n\nHomework shouldn’t be the go-to method of “education” to begin with. Imo Universities should focus on the integral part of education: the lectures. Tools like chatgpt can help student who are actually interested in a subject to learn more easily about it, but whether students actually learn anything or not from a class won’t change regardless of if work is authentic or copied from an AI\nSource: I’m a college student and have had experience in both supervised environments where we had to do work without the use of computers/phones and solely-online environments where many students cheated", ">\n\nWhile this could work, it is not necessarily the best way in terms of accessibility and of learning in general. \nFirst, students with ADHD and certain other conditions may not necessarily be the able to be productive at all times, or at the specific time they have to work on those computers, especially if those computers are not in an environment ideal to that specific person. It would also not be very feasible to give students enough time on these computers to complete the bigger assignments and essays. \nSecond, while ChatGPT is quite advanced, it simply works by looking at language patterns and often gets factual details incorrect. For example, with bigger coding problems, it tries to import modules that do not exist or call on functions that it has not defined. In literature, it cannot analyze texts on much more than a surface level. I will admit it can use secondary sources for textual analysis, however, it is unable to come up with a clear thesis on its own. \nAdditionally, take-home tests can be just as easily cheated on using a normal Google search, and usually test thinking skills rather than understanding and knowledge. \nFinally, essay-writing and other types of assignments are generally not ideal for learning as they are only one type of skill, and university professors are recognizing this. Not only do they not work for all learning styles, but they are only used so commonly because of tradition. University professors are structuring assignments around ways that are innovative enough that ChatGPT is unable to work on them. Along with requiring specific readings which the AI might not have access to, and citing of all sources (which has always been a requirement that the AI might trip up on), they are also going away from the traditional essay format into others. For example, I am studying literature, a relatively essay-heavy field, and in my past few courses I have been asked to analyze comics (which the AI cannot read), edit other people’s essays and articles (from past courses), create a mock syllabus or lesson plan with justifications for each reading, and create annotated bibliographies as a stepping stone to an essay. All of these not only require different skills and encourage different types of learning and research but are quite difficult for an AI to do. \nAll in all, while your suggestion is great, the very nature of the AI and the fact that it exists at all is perhaps a sign that the best course of action is to rework the way we think about evaluation. After all, if an evaluation is such that an AI can complete it without the ability to actually think (it works by using observed language patterns), then perhaps the evaluation is not ideal.", ">\n\nI bet teachers and people thought the same thing about calculators when they came out or 1990s internet. AI bots like chat GPT are just a tool.", ">\n\nAll this effectively does is train kids to accomplish goals of a type that do not exist in the real world in a situation they will never realistically encounter. A better goal is adjusting testing criteria to account for this.\nThere might be very specific sets of knowledge for which rote memorization is appropriate, and for those, the air gapped testing may be appropriate. But I believe those are the exception rather than the rule. By and large, teaching kids to effectively utilize the tools that will be available to them is what we should be doing.", ">\n\nImagine learning where the only books are hand written.\nThe printing press took out a huge amount of repetitive labor in the learning process.\nAI/ChatGPT stands a good chance of removing a huge amount knowledge labor which stands between an idea and the end product. Learning to use the AI to best effect the Idea->End Product Chain is more important than worrying about memorizing formulae we will likely never need to remember. \nThe effort to restrict ChatGPT is just education system worrying about their Cheese Being Moved.", ">\n\nThis just doesn't make any sense to me. You're arguing that we shouldn't allow students to use tools they would have at their disposal in a real working environment, and for what? Why wouldn't you want students to use every tool at their disposal? How exactly is handicapping them helping them to understand the coursework?\nA much better approach would be to fundamentally alter how we teach to better prepare them for the workforce. Encouraging collaboration and creative problem solving skills is much more practical and effective.", ">\n\nChatGPT may pass the Bar, but I highly doubt it will replace lawyers or other professionals. \nThe whole point of credentialing is to drive accountability. Anyone can study the law and cite precedent without a law degree. Actually representing a client in a court of law requires oversight and knowledge. ChatGPT isn't perfect - it will make mistakes from time to time. So who is responsible when it makes a mistake? When is a client (who is not familiar with the law) supposed to know that a mistake has been made on their behalf? For this reason, until ChatGPT is literally perfect you're always going to need a credentialed professional to review the output.\nFor the record, I think ChatGPT is wonderful. But it's a tool that people will use, not a full-fledged replacement for professionals. My employer (a Fortune 500 company) has already rejected its use for internal projects. IT has the website blocked.", ">\n\nThe kids that are educated without its use will fall behind in business when faced with kids that are using it to its fullest extent.\nYou've successfully made an argument for people to succeed in a test that is worthless in the real world. Its parameters don't match.", ">\n\nThe best way to educate children is to teach them skills and strategies that will actually serve them in the workplace of the future. \nChatGPT already has reached the point of replacing humans (See Buzzfeed news). If ChatGPT can take the test or do the homework then what value is that education going to be to these students? Especially older students will quickly see rote memorization as a waste of time and so yes they probably will cheat if they have the opportunity. Trying to force these things to be “learned” and prove that knowledge by brute force banning things is going to be a costly uphill battle.", ">\n\nWhat if we modify how essays are written by students, by asking them to include citations (which is something ChatGPT can’t do)?\nWe can’t stop new tools from making old methods obsolete. But we can focus on enhancing critical thinking of students in a stepwise manner. When a new tool is created, think about how you can adapt rather than resist it.", ">\n\nWhy not just train an ai to spot ai written papers?", ">\n\nWhat about gradually putting more emphasis on oral assignments?", ">\n\nEverything you said makes perfect sense...IF the goal was to teach children simply how to write the perfect standard essay. But that is a very limited way of viewing education and what its real goal is. The real goal of education is to teach children how to think. To come up with the right questions, not just the right answers. In a world where a \"good enough\" essay on literally anything can be conjured as if by magic by a machine, what's the actual value of that exercise now? For a very long time teachers have used the essay as a way to evaluate how a person thinks. Now that a machine can write it for you, we need new ways to evaluate how students think. That's the real task we are facing. Fuck the essay, just like we ditched the slide rule for calculators and later computers, etc. Tools change but the real game remains the same: Think for yourself!", ">\n\nI'd say the best way would be to accept the reality of changing technology and reevaluating the approach we have towards education as a whole.\nGranted, I'd say that's only one half of the picture: reassessing how we conceive if jobs and labour in the face of increasing automation goes along with that, and I think neither really works without the other.\nBottom line is that human labour is more and more obsolete as time goes on, so human jobs will be less and less in demand (I'd argue moving away from a capitalistic system is the right call, but even if you don't, automation is still an incentive).\nSince a large part of the incentive of our current education system is \"prepare you for a job\" I think the whole thing is going to fall short in light of these kinds of systems developing.\nTheres lots of people now who pursue knowledge as a project of passion, rather than a means to an end, and I think moving to a system that supports and encourages that kind of ambition is the way to go.", ">\n\nI disagree. We should learn to use the tools we have efficiently. Otherwise you are not learning for your career but for some professors ego", ">\n\nThat’s not “education in the era of ChatGPT.” That’s education in the era before ChatGPT while we figure out what the world with ChatGPT will look like so we have some idea of what to do with it.\nThat’s also not “educating,” that’s just “assessment.” Assessment is simply a measuring system for education. As long as you think of the acquisition of knowledge and skill as requiring knowledge regurgitation and skill performance in isolation and divorced from context/individualized, then you’re going to end up at necessitating a kind of geofenced, Luddite assessment model. The training itself predicates the assessment method. How we assess is defined by how we teach, and vice versa.\nThe best assessment method to gauge understanding is, and always has been, conversation.\nAll we need to do is pair assessment with regular conversation between qualified teacher and student to determine if personal comprehension is present. Not an interview, not an interrogation — conversation. Problem solving performance contexts are also great revealer of internalized knowledge and skill.\nChatGPT is a relative nonissue if your approach to assessment is at all human.\nIt’s only a problem when you’re trying to mechanize and dehumanized education. “Rigorous” does not mean “mechanical.” We are going to have to trust the professional, knowledge- and skill-assessing judgements of humans who already know and can do.\nEducation reverts to having more emphasis on apprenticeship and mentorship models, where the relationship itself is part of the learning process. \n(The “accountability!” cranks are gonna love that…)", ">\n\nI have a strong suspicion that discussions like this, while very interesting, will be obsolete long before any changes can actually be implemented in schools. In fact, I'm pretty sure schools will be gone entirely in the near future.\nAs of right now, you can be taught almost any subject by an exceptionally well-spoken, fast and infinitely patient teacher called GPT to a university level, if not higher. Try it right now - go ask GPT to explain the political situation that allowed Alexander the Great to conquer Persia, or ask it to explain the raytracing algorithm. If there's a part you don't understand, ask it to clarify. You'll be amazed how accessible it makes advanced topics.\nNow, how long before we have VR software with a realistic-looking AI teacher, with an AI-generated voice, who can do the same thing, but respond to students' voices and use body language and visual demonstrations? Five years?\nHow long after that before this tech is cheap, and of such high quality that sending your kids to school will be a worse education?\nNow in, say, 20 years, we could have an AI system that takes a DNA sample, analyses a students genotype to understand what subjects they will be naturally good at, what education approaches will be most successful, and continuously improves its model of the student's behavior by observing them. It crafts a decades-long education journey tailored to the individual, and accompanies them the entire way.\nTeachers, as far as they've existed so far, don't have a chance.", ">\n\nAre you trying to test someone or teach them?\nIf the latter, why do you care about cheating? This reminds me of the ol' teachers who used to restrict calculators because \"you won't always have a calculator with you.\"", ">\n\nYou forget that for 99% of homework students could just copy each other's work. Having the answers out in the world accessible is not a new problem. You just make homework a small part of the grades and you make sure students understand it's important to actually do it or they won't do well on the tests.", ">\n\nThere are so many people that can’t do the basic math examples you mentioned somewhere and they went to school at a time when there were no calculators.\nOn the other hand I was allowed to use calculators in school pretty much the moment I left elementary school and I am really quite good at math even without assistance.\nTool usage is one of humanities key features and trying to work against it instead of finding ways to incorporate new technology into school and life seems backwards.", ">\n\nIronically the teacher will have to use an AI to decipher the \"hand written\" assignments.", ">\n\nYou can't force people to learn.", ">\n\nWhat about teaching how to think rather than how to memorize? Just a thought 💭", ">\n\nThey need to get rid of homework, and have students do their work while they're at school. It's awful, they just pile it on, even if a class only has a little homework that day, there's like 6 or 7 classes so it's a nightmare for students. Seems like the only way to prevent cheating is have them do work in class, so I hope for the students sake, they do that.", ">\n\nI’ll throw my idea into the ring, though we’re still a few years off from this technology:\nWe should have students interact with AI tutors that can prompt them questions and point out details. Then they can collaborate on assignments, and the AI tutor can give feedback and suggest snippets. The AI can evaluate their work and their engagement with the material.", ">\n\nOne of Transformers main applications is in search. Ie you get a set of embeddings you can compare the pairwise distances between embedding and get a list of scores that tell you which embeddings are most similar to the input. \nEssentially tools like google are made to reduce the search space for a given query collect likely links and then rerank the most likely results. \nChatgpt basically does this in a more direct way of searching through a space of potential responses. Basically trained on a task to predict next token given the previous tokens or fill in a mask\nTransformers permeate everything students use from the recommendation algorithms on TikTok Facebook, YouTube to search systems in google. \nIn my opinion students should absolutely not be taught to fear these tools tho I do agree they be tested in constrained environments to challenge them. Current systems should not be used to learn unless you have a clear understanding and are willing to check every word and check your reasoning. Future systems will be much better though so this problem isn’t going anywhere. \nIf anything there should be a push to make these ideas more interpretable to a younger audience and give them the tools to navigate an increasingly complex market of ideas. They should be aware of the limitations and how when they use a piece of software their actions and the actions of those around them are influencing what they see next. \nIt should be used and taught with rigor. \nIt’s programming 2.0", ">\n\nDude no; \nChatGPT is the computer. \nDo you want to be the education system that banned the computer and then wondered why all the other education systems output modern tech workers, while your education system kept outputting chimney sweeps and car factory workers?", ">\n\nHW only exists to make students practice, and generally is worth less than 20% of the grade in a class. If a student chooses to use chat GPT to bypass it then that’s the student’s loss.\nUltimately exams are what schools use to evaluate a students knowledge and I don’t think that’s going to change anytime soon", ">\n\nThere are already programs that check if something was written by an AI or not. Also no student I know actually uses chatGPT for major assignments because chatGPT doesn’t know every text to ever be published so it doesn’t understand the context, and most of the time will just bullshit an answer that’s incorrect.\nEveryone I know that uses chatGPT for school do so for either for assignments so small and simple that it doesn’t make sense to quarantine, or they use it as a more advanced google that can answer questions more accurately than a search engine could, essentially just saving time.\n(most) students are using chatGPT largely as a productivity and time management tool rather than to cheat.", ">\n\nThis is like saying “in the age of calculators, the only way to ensure kids learn maths is to ban calculators in school”. If looked at correctly, chatgpt is an effect multiplier, learning just has to be rejigged to have kids learn to do things that they can’t simply ask chatgpt to do for them.", ">\n\nLess course work and more exams is the future in a world with chatGPT.", ">\n\nChatGPT will be a big no issue soon. I work in a research field and this was something we worried about last year. As of now there are multiple tools and even more being developed that catch the use of ChatGPT. There has been research published that list ChatGPT as a co-author, but for most research, and use by students, it will simply be forbidden and will easily be caught as well. The program does well but it has a particular style that can be caught. Again it will be a non-issue soon.", ">\n\nThis is like forbidding people to use a calculator because it can give you the result instant. A better way is to teach them how to use the calculator, because its here now and won't go away. Same with GPT. Children can learn way better/faster with ChatGPD if used correctly. Imaging having a private teacher for free which helps you learning every time of the day.", ">\n\nLet me ask you this. If ChatGPT could complete a students whole assignment, what would that student have learned from doing that assignment on their own that won’t simply be replaced with ChatGPT by a employer in the future?\nEven if ChatGPT doesn’t replace workers for a decade, why teach students skills that will inevitably be replaced and leave said students jobless in a decade?\nChatGPT won’t only be used in the workforce either. Linus Tech Tips has a video showing how ChatGPT can help people learn new skills and do troubleshooting on their own. If I remember correctly, he manages to completely build a pc by only strictly following what ChatGPT tells him to. It even managed to suggest the best parts for that computers specific use case. It was nowhere near perfect, but in the future it will get there.\nSince ChatGPT is such a useful tool in the workforce and at home, I think it’s crucial we teach students how to use it instead of banning them from it. Maybe students should be given a problem and tasked to use ChatGPT to find the solution or have students attempt to learn a new topic with ChatGPT. I’m not a teacher, I just thought of those examples of the top of my head. I’m sure qualified teachers could think of better assignments than me.\nI could see ChatGPT helping a mechanic diagnose an issue so the mechanic could spend more time fixing the problem rather than diagnosing and I can think of a few examples in other jobs as well where ChatGPT will help a worker be more efficient and save more time.\nI think, if anything, we’re setting students up for failure by not teaching them about these tools that will take over the workforce and help in everyday life.", ">\n\nYou’ll still have to pass a test. Relax.", ">\n\nIt “fairs” extremely well? Maybe some additional time spent observing ChatGPT could actually benefit some", ">\n\nThere’s just no way you can use ChatGPT to do all of your work for you and be successful at any moderately high level of academic pursuit. Not without learning the material yourself, and if you’ve done that, I don’t think it matters so much whether you used chatGPT and for what along the way.\nFrankly if you start our using chatGPT early in school, you won’t even be able to ask the right questions in the right way and include the necessary refinements to do more complex and demanding assignments down the road. \nAlso, tests are still a thing aren’t they? ChatGPT doesn’t help you perform in person in a monitored environment - not in a way that would allow you to skip learning the material. I don’t really get this aspect of your cmv. As long as tests don’t allow access to ChatGPT, anyone who didn’t learn the material is going to be exposed..", ">\n\nThere are already programs that detect ChatGPT writing.", ">\n\nThe children who want to cheat will always find a way to do so. It doesn’t matter how much you do to restrict it, it’ll just make them find new means of doing so. \nSource: I did GCSE’s in the UK, AP in the US. Trust, kids will cheat even in sterile environments. Especially if it’s a huge room and there are few moderators. A lot of us are scared of repercussions but those who aren’t won’t let anything stand in there way—region and proctoring be damned.", ">\n\nI require them to complete an outline first. Outline must be submitted to me before I take the essay. Google doc lets you see that they write it and when each sentence was written. It’s helped.", ">\n\nCHATGPT is a tool, and in some applications (not all), it can help students do their homework. Consider the calculator. Do students not need to learn formulas and critical thinking just because they can punch numbers into calculators?\nNo, math is still a skill that is valuable if for no other reason then because it trains your brain to solve problems.\nOne of the things that surprises me is that ChatGPT can use words and explain things to students even when a teacher is not available or when there isn’t one. we should consider this an educational opportunity rather than a disadvantage.\nThere are so many amazing things we humans can do when we simply have tools to help us. ChatGPT is no different.", ">\n\nYou can’t force people to live in the past. Chat GPT is here to stay. Education now needs to focus on teaching people how to use AI, and how to develop a skill that can’t be replaced by AI.", ">\n\nHow about getting students engaged in what they’re learning and excited to learn. Find what they’re good at and double down on it. Don’t make school a fucking quarantine bubble. Socialize, allow them to teach and learn from each other. Replace the potential for cheating with collaboration assignments in person. “Children will cheat if given the opportunity” is such horse shit. If somebody doesn’t know or wasn’t taught something well then yea they’re gonna look to get it right so they can obtain approval. How about teaching them so they won’t cheat??", ">\n\nThats not it. I don’t have an answer for you, but thats not it.", ">\n\nHow about just have the kids do a presentation on \"their\" report with Q&A at the end. They'll have no choice but to know the info.... which is the point.", ">\n\nWell, making an AI that detects if something was made by an AI shouldnt be hard", ">\n\nI wonder if anyone has tried training a machine to look at assignments and give a confidence interval of the assignment being either human or machine in origin.", ">\n\nYeah we call that stuff examns...", ">\n\nThe problem with your suggested approach is that it just reinforces the current failures of the education system. It doesn't actually teach us the skills that you will be able to use in the field. \n\nYou can look up formulas for physics and you can double check online for any coding questions. Chat gpt is a tool and I think forbidding students from using it will just be a disservice to them and everyone in the future. It's not going to go away any time soon so how about instead of teaching children to cheat more effectively, we teach them how to use chat gpt to its full potential? It can speed up so many tasks to such a degree that students will be able to recieve more advanced education in the time that was saved by using chat gpt", ">\n\nI mean, there are plenty of good reasons already said, but wouldn't it just be easy to cheat. You get home, ask Chat.gpt for a result, print it out. Bring it with you to the school quarantine, copy it into the computer. (Unless you would like a full strip search of the students upon entering, which is wrong in so many ways)", ">\n\nI could use this in my program all I wanted and pass courses with perfect scores, and at the end of my degree I’d have a licensure exam that I’d fail cause I didn’t learn anything.", ">\n\nGreat idea! While let's just ignore the real world and keep our heads in the sand. Let's also get rid of computers and ink pens and go back to stone and chisel!", ">\n\nInstead of asking students to write ...ask them to spot the mistakes and correct the essays.\nThat requires way more knowledge and mastership.", ">\n\nI feel like this is a modern day equivalent to saying that now that the internet is available at the family computer, students must complete their work entirely under supervision.\nAI is here and more that is better is coming and people need to learn how to integrate with it rather than fight it. It's going to take some jobs. Just like the cotton gin and steam drill took work from people who then immediately transitioned to other work that the machine couldn't do and to running to machine itself. People will need to run ChatGPT. Feed it, verify its output, clean it up and submit the report based on CGPT4.0's write up. Individuals need to know the material, sure, but we can't really keep students off the internet and trying to do so just wastes resources and makes teachers pull their hair out.", ">\n\nI think the problem lies deeper. Humans and especially children want to learn and understand. One of the most common words a 5 y/o uses is \"why\". \"Why do airplanes fly? Why is the sun bright? Why can't I have candy? Why isn't the house collapsing? It is bigger than my sandcastle that fell over.\" And the education system should be ashamed of itself that it kills this curiosity and motivation of the children. I don't want to go too deep into possible solutions. Just one anecdote from myself:\nWe had to produce an educational video. For that we got 20 hours time. We worked around 30, met at my apartment and filmed after a day off homeschooling. Nobody thought of cheating with chatgpt because we have the script our character. On the other hand: I should colour a heart now and I don't want to, so I don't do it.\nEveryone has their video and colouring schematics and we should encourage the prior to the latter, making the demand for cheating less important \nAlso we sent around our homeworks all the time. The concept of homework isn't great at all", ">\n\nHomeschool. Problem solved.", ">\n\nSorry, u/Own-Listen1552 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nHow is ChatGPT different than what Math teachers had to go through when calculators become a thing?\nAt first, they banned them \"because the students have to learn the material!\" \nStudents rebelled because \"We'll always have a calculator available.\"\nEventually, teachers relented and now allow calculators in the class.\nDo you see the trajectory of ChatGPT going any different?\nAs for ChatGPT improving, if everybody is using it then it won't be able to improve because the only new input will just be reinforcing feedback from its own work.\nAs for children cheating, how is using ChatGPT different than any other sort of plagiarism detection that teachers already have to deal with? Also, the makers of ChatGPT also provide a tool that will tell you if a particular work product was produced by it. Isn't that good enough of a deterrent?\nAir gapping the kids from legitimate research material seems to be a bit extreme to me.", ">\n\nWhen I was young, calculators weren't allowed. Later, we were allowed to use them, but only on some tests.\nPersonally, I thought that was stupid. It's like training a carpenter, but not allowing power tools.\nAI is here to stay. Teach them how to use that useful tool to maximum effect, instead of teaching a work method which will likely be obsolete within five years.", ">\n\nHow bout not putting children in a prison for 8 hours, but teach them how to learn and getting them interested and motivated for school. My biggest problem in School was how boring most of the teachers taught the material. Maybe dont let every random highly educated person be a teacher if they cant work with kids. When i had the right teacher he sort of started my hunger for knowledge about the themes he was teaching. Plus kids and teenagers hate doing what theyre told to do so i dont think that is a solution at all.", ">\n\nAgree that airgapped areas are necessary but the best way to educate children in the era of ChatGPT is to develop a ChatGPT based tool that quizzes children on homework they hand in.", ">\n\nMy moms a parent for middle schoolers, she says it's happened already a lot this semester, but the thing is, most can tell just from the sentence structure and fluidity, sometimes they are just still wrong answers or definitely not the answer they needed.", ">\n\nThere are other ways to determine a child's understanding of material. A friend of mine is a teacher and he asks students (11-16) to read read their essays out loud. If you can't read it, you definitely didn't write it. He also asks what certain sentences mean; if they can't tell him, they didn't write it. \nYou can also get children to give spoken presentations. Sure ChatGPT could write the presentation for you, but you would have to learn the content well enough to give the presentation." ]
>	[ "/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^\| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.", ">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?", ">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.", ">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?", ">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.", ">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?", ">\n\nYou mean a grade?", ">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication", ">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.", ">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)", ">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.", ">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.", ">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.", ">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.", ">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?", ">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.", ">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.", ">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.", ">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.", ">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.", ">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.", ">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.", ">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.", ">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.", ">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.", ">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.", ">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.", ">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.", ">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use", ">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.", ">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.", ">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.", ">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.", ">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.", ">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.", ">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.", ">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).", ">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.", ">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.", ">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.", ">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.", ">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.", ">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.", ">\n\n\nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \n\nWhy? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it. \n\nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \n\nWhy? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? \nLet's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project. \n\nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.\n\nTotally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator.", ">\n\nFor the most part, knowledge workers perform a given amount of work in a given amount of hours, and the number of them hired by a company is TotalHoursNeeded/NumHoursPerEmployee. E.g. if you have 100 manyears of work to get done in a typical year, you employ 100 people.\nChat GPT isn't going to \"replace\" people wholesale, because as you say someone still needs to supervise it. But it looks to be on track to increase the productivity of programmers (can write a first draft of code and finds many of the bugs instantly). \nSame for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones. \nSo now the TotalNeeded is decreased by some percentage, let's say 10% to start. Now you only need 90 human programmers to do that same work. With 25% efficiency gain, you need 75. With 50%, 50. Etc. \nOr take translation jobs. Today, an editor spends roughly 3 minutes per word editing machine translated text, and 1 minute per word editing human-translated text. As long as editors are more expensive per hour than first translation people, it still makes sense much of the time to hire translators, because the software isn't free. \nBut the graph of machine translation \"efficiency\" is trending towards taking the same amount of time to edit as a human translator. As soon as that's hit, there's literally no reason to hire human translators, only editors. \nAnd if the editing time goes down to 30 seconds/word because of further AI assistance to the editor, you only need half as many of those.", ">\n\nThere is currently two better solutions being worked on - one of which is already being used to some degree. \nThe first is ChatGPT developers themselves making moves to make AI written works to be identified by \"watermark\" or similar. I don't thi k this one has taken effect at all yet. \nAnother is by a separate dev team that allows teachers to use software to determine the amount of an essay, for example, that is written by AI what the likelihood of any one sentence or paragraph to have been written by AI. This allows the teachers to use discretion when determining if the student used the AI in a way that they find acceptable or not. This way instead kf running from the scary AI educators can actually utilize tyhe AI with students to help them develop their writing and other communications.", ">\n\nWhat about kids with transportation issues? When I was in school I knew kids that drove almost an hour each way to get there. I certainly couldn’t have asked my parents to drop everything to take me all the way to school so I could do my homework if I forgot. Bus schedules? Do you think schools want to waste more money by burning more gas for extra routes? I understand where you’re coming from, but for a fair amount of children—especially in poorer, more rural areas—that getting to school and back is such a delicate balancing act that such a thing would just punish them.", ">\n\nI've seen a few key things from academics testing out ChatGPT (I have not signed up myself):\n\nIt tends to produce confident, convincing nonsense. It doesn't actually understand what it's writing about, and I hear it shows.\nIt makes up citations. Real authors in the field, real journals... but made-up titles. Things like that, since, again, it doesn't actually understand citations.\n\nThis suggests that, for assignments requiring the demonstration of genuine, in-depth understanding, and not merely the ability to summarize facts, ChatGPT will fail.\nA similar example that you bring up in the comments is programming cheat sheets into calculators - but for well-designed engineering exams (including the licensure exams, at least in the US), cheat sheets are fine and often either allowed or provided. A well-designed exam tests the ability to apply principles, not knowledge of equations, so a cheat sheet is harmless, or even allows the exam to work better (since people aren't distracted with memorizing equations).", ">\n\nThere are three criticisms that I have of this approach. \n\n\nShould we not teach to the environment that we live in? Yes, education often imposes arbitrary constraints like time tests but for research and reports why not let people use and work around all resources? If you can work around chat gpt to work efficiently, then do it. You learn what it can and can’t do and how to use it effectively as a tool. \n\n\nCan chatGPT on it’s own actually write a good essay? From what I have seen it can pull together a few sources. It can generally write fluff based on other things that it has seen. But it struggles to write analysis. It can’t interrogate a source or make value judgements. It could be useful for doing some filler or providing ideas but if to do an actual report, I think it would be insufficient. \n\n\nAn assignment that can be done using chatgpt is probably boring. Here I am writing an essay for no reason other than I find it interesting to discuss this topic. Perhaps, we arent giving students interesting enough assignments or we are overloading them to the point that they don’t have the time to engage? If chatGPT turns out to be an issue maybe it’s more of an indictment of the structures and norms of education.", ">\n\n\n\nhomework in the form of essays, take home tests, coding assignments, would be completed on school grounds. \n\n\nCongratulations, you've invented the \"cram school\".\nI'd recommend reading through your post again and actually thinking about the things you've said. Because essentially, you're merely advocating for the wholesale elimination of homework and for education outside of that to remain totally unchanged. It's almost literally, \"Make the school day 30% longer\".\nMy solution to the \"problem\" of students potentially using ChatGPT to cheat on homework: I don't think you need a hilariously convoluted system of homework \"boiler rooms\" redolent of national security apparatus, that requires schools to adopt ruinously expensive and disruptive technological and administrative changes.\nIt would be sufficient if we institute a system whereby teachers are encouraged to, let's say... \"test\" their students, whether by regular written exams or by talking to them in what I'll call \"classes\", to ensure they understand the material they've been assigned to learn.\nThis method ensures that students cannot use AI homework bots to coast through classes (since they'll literally be found out the very next class), and has the added benefit of not adding three hours to every teacher's day.", ">\n\nWhat about pen and ink?", ">\n\narguably I can just copy a ChatGPT output by hand. So I think that is a first level measure, but not a complete solution.", ">\n\nIt's a better solution than prison just because the curriculum can't keep up with technology.\nWhen calculators arrived on everyone's phone and everyone's pocket did you advocate for the same solution? Unlikely, so why only now with this system?", ">\n\nWell I did and I was. When I was studying engineering in the 80s we routinely could not arrive at exams with a calculator. Even then calculators were programmable enough to allow students to write cheat sheets in calculator memory.\nIt forced us to memorize equations, principals of engineering, and independent thinking. I’m a better engineer because I did.", ">\n\nSo you're what, almost 60? And you think what's best for children is to be like you? Don't you think you may be a bit out of touch?\nAlso, your view was about K12 students, not engineering students.", ">\n\nNo. As I replied, leaning on tools as a crutch all your life will limit your ability and function as a human. For example, you could argue that basic math isn’t necessary. As matter of fact that was an argument years ago with the advent of calculators.\nHowever, humans should be able to exist and functions without a digital crutch. You should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator. You should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google. There are basic elements of duration necessary since we are all still wet grey matter.", ">\n\n\nYou should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator\n\nBut why?\n\nYou should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google\n\nAgain, why?\nWhere do you get your \"should\" from?\nI have basically all human knowledge in my hand, every equation or conversion I'll ever need day to day, even every language I'll likely ever encounter. Why shouldn't I leave my brain free to think about what it wants and to use my incredible resource as and when it's needed?\nDo you envision some Saw-like situation where you're locked to a wall and need to solve maths equations at pain of death?", ">\n\nThe less you use your brain the less likely your body is to maintain it. Our body functions through a use or lose it principle. Just look people who lose movement function/muscle just by being bedridden for a long time. Our brain is not different.\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.", ">\n\nIs wasting resources on process you can deletage outside not using your brain? You free up that space to put to what you decide is important.\n\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.\n\nThe weakest man with a gun can take out the strongest bodybuilder.", ">\n\nAnd if you decide Tik tok and Netflix are important? How do you think that will affect the cognitive ability of kids?\nI didn't mention strength nor physical strength. And even then the strongest man with a gun will probably take out the weakest man with a gun.(An actual fair comparison)", ">\n\nCouldn't chatgpt (or somesuch AI) be asked \"Hey - did you write this?\" and nip this sort of thing in the bud?", ">\n\nNo, Chat GPT doesn't remember everything it's said, the potential things it could say are huge and even if someone wrote something that Chat GPT might say, it could be a coincidence.", ">\n\nWell, strike that idea then.\nStill though - there must be some way to use AI to deal with this. \"set a thief to catch a thief\" and all that.", ">\n\nChat GPT (and most generative AIs) use GANs to generate content. \nIn laymen's terms (and extremely simplified as it's above my level of understanding) a GAN is 2 AI systems competing against each other, a creator AI that creates content and a checker AI that decides if the content was genuine or made by the other AI. \nSo any automated way to tell if it's AI generated can be built into the checker AI in future versions and the creator AI will learn to avoid whichever features the checker AI is spotting.", ">\n\nChatGPT is just another mechanism for reducing the need for labor, and it's not going away. \nChildren will need to be educated in both how to make effective use of it (for as long as it's not sufficient to completely eliminate mental labor), and also in the ethics of not using it. Always forcing them to write in airgapped places isn't going to do that, it just makes them resent it. \nAlso: essay writing on a scale needed to really learn long-form writing is not very amenable to doing in an airgapped classroom, because honestly we're not using dead-tree sources of information anymore already, so doing their research pretty much has to include doing it on line. \nBut really: laborious manual long-form essay writing is going to go the way of penmanship and looking things up in a library as an unneeded skill very quickly. We need children to adjust to that reality of the modern world rather than pretending it will go away. \nPeople are still needed (for now) to do the important part of writing essays without doing the laborious bit that ChatGPT automates anyway: deciding what to write, and editing it into a convincing and well-written form. \nForcing kids to spend a lot of time learning how to write the basic bulk part of essays is a lot like teaching them how to make buggy-whips in shop class: a pointless exercise. \nIt would be better to give them all prewritten ChatGPT essays and have them learn the limitations and capabilities.", ">\n\nIs ChatGPT really that much more effective than just grabbing things off Wikipedia? I was asking it things about elections and it was just Wikipedia from two years ago", ">\n\nThe answer is NEVER to limit technology. It’s to teach the new generation how to use that technology to achieve the same goal.\nIt’s pointless to ban computers and teach the memorization of dates in history class. It’s much more productive to teach online research skills so that if an individual needs to know the date of a particular moment in history, they can reliably Google it.\nChatGPT is the same. It renders writing essays as pointless, and it necessitates the teachers to adapt to new teaching styles, such as teaching the skills on how best to manipulate ChatGPT to return the information you need.", ">\n\nI was banned from using programming calculators when I studied engineering in the 80s during exams. It forced the students to all be on the same level playing field and forced us to actually know the equations, their applications, and the processes of whatever engineering course I was taking.\nIt made us better engineers.", ">\n\nHow does handicapping you make you a better engineer? If I put you and an engineer trained with technology in the same room together, who do you think would accomplish the task faster?", ">\n\nThe handicapped engineer, easily. The point of forcing students to actually learn the material is so that they understand how to reason about the underlying processes when they need to troubleshoot something going wrong, and understand the tradeoffs between approaches and how to select the best one for the task. \nOnce you understand things deeply you don't actually need training in doing things quickly because it's immediately intuitive how to apply a technological process to save time. The guy that leaned heavily on technology is basically fucked if he has to use a technique or software that he didn't specifically train on since he doesn't have a good foundation to abstract from. It would be more appropriate to call this person a technician.", ">\n\nThe purpose of calculators is to do the menial part of the work, not to solve whole processes. The engineer that learned with calculators likely knows how to select the right process to solve a problem, but uses the calculator to do the math faster and with fewer errors.", ">\n\nAt the college level, we’re not talking about tools to add and multiply. We’re talking about tools like Wolfram Alpha that do entire symbolic manipulations for you. If I took a calculus class and on all the assignments used Wolfram Alpha to find derivatives, do you think I would have learned anything?\nThat is what ChatGPT is doing for essays", ">\n\nThere are things called pencil and paper.", ">\n\nAs I said, this is the first line defense. However as I already commented to another user. I can simply hand copy ChatGPT output. Essentially not doing my own independent research, writing, coding, and studying.", ">\n\nWhy don't you consider that research? \nThe first source was the best. It's incredibly efficient research IMO.", ">\n\nThe idea of tool removal has always been flawed. From calculators to chat GPT and beyond. If your test is so flimsy that a simple tool invalidates it then the test is poorly built. Test shouldn't be simple busywork tasks, they should require thinking, problem solving, complex thought. If it's just a game of memorization that can be cheated by answers on a paper, you've built a bad test.\nover memorization (which is what our current school systems teach) is not only unhelpful, but also harmful. We live in an era of wikipedia being a reliable source, of vast access to tools both online and phsycial. We should be teaching kids they should do the work but with the help of those tools, not despite them.\nThe main issue with your argument is that based on what you've said, i can assume you think the current school system is a good one but so many studies have shown that at least here in the US, the school systems are some of the worst in the world. It's this memorize, ignore tools, singular focus mentality that plays such a big role.\nIf we were more creative with education, incorporating tool utilization into the learning process, we'd likely have a major improvement to our educational successes. I could go on about how the education system prefers certain kinds of students over others, and how many students are left behind simply because they don't learn like other kids and are therefore punished, but I won't. All I'll say is that more restrictions on how and what kids learn isn't going to help them learn more or better.\nand in 15 years when chat GPT is a part of daily life in every single company on the planet in some way or another (which I'm beyond certain it will be), kids who were taught how to properly utilize it will have just such a huge advantage in the workforce over those who weren't", ">\n\nRather than attempt to find ways to prevent new technology from interfering with existing pedagogy, shouldn't we review and revise pedagogy as new technology develops? \nIf a chat AI program can write these things, what is the point of having humans repeatedly do the same work? We don't expect people to use an abacus when doing math, or limit their research to what's in the library card catalogue, or require printed paper publications as essay resources; we adapted to the calculator, and to the internet and search engines. So too should we adapt to things like ChatGPT, not by trying to pretend it doesn't exist, but by finding ways to incorporate it into a more holistic approach to learning.\nRather than chain kids to an airgapped room on school grounds outside of school hours to do homework that's of dubious educational value in the first place, we should take this as an opportunity to refocus schooling on in-class engagement and direct instruction. ChatGPT and programs like it are showing us yet another thing we as humans can outsource to our technology, so why struggle to do things in a more difficult and inefficient way?", ">\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\nIn addition, AI is only as good as the data it is fed. You must still be able to do the work on your own to analyze when the AI is giving valid outputs (garbage in, garbage out). This is especially true, when AI runs the risks of being owned or operated by those with a specific agenda. Can you imagine the trouble that would result if people relied on AI to determine who to vote for, but someone was able to pay the operators to have the AI promote them?\nRelying on AI to do our work for us is a distillation of an appeal to authority fallacy on a large scale (if the AI says it, it must be true).", ">\n\n\nAI writes these things from source material that has been written before, it doesn't create new material, it synthesizes material that already exists. If we rely on AI to do our work, then new knowledge can't be developed.\n\nThis is something I worry about A LOT when it comes to AI. Our collective understanding of the subjects that we usually classify as \"the humanities\" is constantly evolving as we learn more, and especially as a more diverse set of people are allowed to study, research and put forth opinions and arguments.\nImagine if students were outsourcing all their history, psychology, sociology and philosophy homework to a chatbot with a 1950s understanding of those subjects.\nImagine doctors outsourcing psych patient diagnoses to a chatbot with the same understanding.\nOn an arguably less \"serious\" but still critically important moral and political topic, imagine if all/most videogame art was outsourced to an AI engine with a 1990s sensibility for female characters. Same for all kinds of representation and diversity.\nHow about politics and political science in general... ha!\nEtc, etc etc.\nIt is NOT the case that we already have discovered all the true answers to the big questions, and we can merely turn to a \"knowledge calculator\" like ChatGPT to spit out the truth.\nEven if AI can pretty accurately reflect the discourse of the day, as it is currently understood and accepted, our collective knowledge and culture will stagnate if we do not actively participate in developing it, and we will all pay the price for that.", ">\n\nThese are all moralistic arguments that ultimately don’t mean anything.", ">\n\nI would say they are more epistemic arguments, which do matter greatly in the context of education (which is what the op was referring to).", ">\n\nAre any of these things mentioned actually realistic concerns? Someone is going to train an AI bot to generate 90s female art characters with big tits?\nNo. Lol and even if someone did, who cares?", ">\n\nConsidering how many people believe obviously fake stories that have no supporting evidence (and in spite of contrary evidence), yes, I believe they are very real concerns.\nIf an AI says we should use Brawndo in farming because its got what plants crave (electrolytes), we should probably be able to justify it with reasoning beyond \"the AI says so.\"", ">\n\nWho is suggesting we do anything “just because an AI said so”? \nDo you read books and think everything in it is true “because the book says so”?", ">\n\nHow do you determine if what the book/ai said is false?\nYou would typically do it through a process of research and discovery.\nPeoples' ability to do research and discovery will be greatly diminished if we rely on AI to do those things for us (which is what the previous posters were suggesting).\nTherefore, reliance on AI will lead to us losing the ability to discern if the results of what the AI is saying is correct.", ">\n\nWhat? Lol that doesn’t make any sense at all. \nIt is not like if we use AI then all previous knowledge is simply forgotten or lost. It’s all still there.", ">\n\nForcing homework at school makes that \"not homework\", and this approach has never worked. You cant reject change, it never works. Every time there has been a game changing event, people adapted. Those who tried to reject change disappeared. Horse carriages disappeared from roads because something else replaced it. Some people supposedly rejected progress, but they are lying to themselves, they still use modern tech or services at some point.\nAnyway, the change is here, and it made essays irrelevant. Time to find another way to test people skills. \nGive it a little time though. ChatGPT costs a ginormous amount of money to run and will not stay free for long either.", ">\n\nIt's not just ChatGPT, the actual innovation is not the interface but lies in algorithms that can recreate natural language of similar quality with smaller data samples. There are also OpenSource datasets like ThePile, etc. so even if OpenAI moves to a paid model (and they will, quickly. You can already sign up to be first in line for the API), there will be other free providers.", ">\n\nHaving coded AIs, I disagree. ChatGPT is a regular trained AI. The novelty is the scale of the operation, and the fact there is a public API.\nNo one ever spent that much money on resources to run and train an AI publicly. I am pretty sure google has done something similar with user data sets to make their search engine and general ecosystem.\nI wish there was a way to have algorithms working with smaller data sets and produce similar results, but it kind of does not work that way.", ">\n\nThere are already tools to identify ChatGPT generated texts. Such tools will improve as another use of literally the same technology.\nJust as teachers submit essays for identifying plagiarism, teachers will submit essays for identifying AI-generated text. \nFurther, a focus could change from grading students on what they know to grading students' ability to ask meaningful, content-based questions about the subject. After all, knowing facts isn't particularly valuable as a skill. Integrating facts and discovering valuable questions is still something that remains a uniquely human skill. And is where people will continue to add value as AI becomes more advanced.", ">\n\nStudents have always been able to 'cheat' on work done outside the classroom, by copying or somehow getting others to do their work for them, even before the internet. Yes with more advanced modern technology it is easier but this has always been a concern. \nAs regular learning environments like supervised classrooms are already 'quarantined' in the way you descibe you are fundementally just suggesting an increase in learning hours as a supplement to homework. This has been suggested by many for various reasons but it would overall cuase more issues than it fixes. It increases work load on teachers and administrators, stretching already thin educational budgets, and forces increased mental strain on children. It would limit their ability to do other recreational and out of ciriculum activities. This would be disruptive and controlling when the quantity of teaching and learning time that children recive is already considered sufficiant for a good education.", ">\n\nHell the only thing stopping me from using ChatGPT regularly for my work now is that it's always at capacity.", ">\n\nApply tests that are hand written, doesnt matter how a person obtains the knowledge, actually learning the subject is most important thing.", ">\n\nThere is no amount of ChatGPT that could influence a good old oral exam where the teacher evaluates the understanding via a little chat.", ">\n\nSo tired of this view. We shouldn’t be fighting technology. Teach kids to use the resources they have to find answers. It’s such a waste of 12 years of school, teaching kids to memorize facts and follow rules. \nInstead, every test should be open book and reward the best answers. Ask the kids to show their work or explain their thought process so we reward understanding of a topic rather than memorization of steps or text.", ">\n\n20 years ago, there were already homework communities and learn groups. Even from the publishers of school books and with free access to tutors. Ok, they didnt do the final homework for me, but gave me a great starting point.\nBeing the kid who transcribes a wiki page was already stupid back then when others could call you out:\nBut I guess the actual problem is lack of digital literacy with teachers, they're always 5-10 years behind.", ">\n\nIf you are testing skills that can be done by free tools on the internet, then you are testing irrelevant skills.\nThe best way to educate kids is to test for skills they need, not skills they objectively don't.\nI was able to witness a couple of universities adapt to tests during quarantine, and follow reports on how the new methods would be used going forward.\nThe results where thus:\nMass offline testing is incredibly cost efficient (one examiner per ~300 students), but the tests results are a poor indicator of real world performance.\nOne to One testing is incredibly expensive, but can, when done right, test actual understanding and performance.\nBoth will be useful, of course. Mass testing is most useful when used in a way that students aren't incentivized to cheat, such as when framed as practice.", ">\n\nOne of the upsides of needing to prevent this kind of tech from cheating assignments is that teachers should focus on having students be able to do their homework at school. (As a former teacher, we were trying to do this already- no more than 15 min of homework per class). \nI dont think we need to do quite what you say. We just need to limit outside electronics and have in-person classrooms or computer labs with programs designed to be AI-proof. \nI have ALWAYS believed that cell phones/internet watches should be stored in school lockers (at most) and never allowed anywhere else on campus during the school day. If anyone needs to contact the students they contact the desk who relays their message/other need. Many schools already do this.", ">\n\n∆\nI agree with this. It would help.", ">\n\nThank you!", ">\n\nThat is utterly pointless.\nThere is no reason to limit the available tools.\nThis just reminds me of the entire \"you won't have a calculator wherever you go\" argument.\nSchool should instead put a focus on responsibly using available tools.", ">\n\nAnd if students choose to use them irresponsibly, what should schools do?\nAnd can you please define what constitutes responsible use? Because despite knowing about plagiarism, people still copy and paste from the internet. Perfect abstinence is easier than perfect moderation after all.", ">\n\nJust return to hand written essays and have more oral exams.", ">\n\n∆l\nActually of all comments having oral exams compliments my post and I agree with you. Enjoy the delta.", ">\n\nIn a Faraday cage.", ">\n\nIf children can just generate work with ChatGPT, it simply shows that children are not being taught anything valuable. (Once ChatGPT responses can be generated in almost unlimited amounts at very low cost, it necessarily means those responses are of low value)\nInstead shouldn't we be teaching children to provide more valuable outcomes that ChatGPT can't replicate?", ">\n\nBeing able to do on your own what ChatGPT does with access to an immense amount of data and processing power is valuable. The actual writing isn't valuable, obviously, but it would be silly to expect it to be. It's just a side effect of practice, you spend time making things of little or no value to build up the skills you'll need to make something that actually matters. That's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\nI think you'd be hard pressed to teach a class of children to outperform ChatGPT in writing without ever asking them to write something that could also be done via AI. What would that even look like?", ">\n\n\nThat's why it isn't a problem that math students keep solving the same problems over and over without discovering anything new.\n\nIt is a problem. That is why I hated math class until 2nd year of university.", ">\n\nDid you start discovering novel math results in your second year of university, or was that just the point at which you first encountered problems you found interesting, despite the fact that someone else had already solved them before? Thinking back the class you didn't hate, do you think it should be removed if someone can construct an AI to give all the answers you gave?", ">\n\nThis is only a method for evaluating students, it doesn't do anything to educate them.\nChatgpt is potentially a great tool for education but trying to find complex ways around it for homework is pointless. When testing fact retention is required using school/university computers with no web browsing makes sense. For any other test or situation it's a tool that might be used.", ">\n\nI understand OPs concern. That said, I do not think you can create true quarantine for a multitude of reasons. \nThe biggest one is probably time. I worked through high school and university. Because I lived in the middle of nowhere it was about a 30 min drive to high school and then an hour to uni. Having to stay at these quarantine zones to complete assignments would have been hell on my schedule, car, and wallet. \nYou said it yourself, if someone is going to cheat, they will cheat. If I had to do the work in a quarantine zone, what exactly stops me from doing the actual work on my computer at home, printing it all out, and then just writing that into the computer at the quarantine zone? Unless you want to try having students write an entire essay in their hour long class? There has to be a point where they go home and then this falls apart.", ">\n\nThere are already lots of ways to cheat in homework and mostly our steps to deal with that amount to the honour system, and by university level, automated plagiarism detection (which can be quite easily avoided). The point you \"won't argue\" that people will cheat if given the opportunity is probably the actual crux of what's wrong with your suggestion and the part that needs a big [citation needed]. Concluding that the majority of people are fundamentally dishonest is a big assumption to handwave away. \nIf you want an education, cheating is stupid. Ultimately you might get a paper qualification out of it but you'll have actually learned nothing - you won't hold up long against someone who has done it properly when you actually have to apply the skills. Or if you do, then the assignments weren't that crucial to the learning in the first place.", ">\n\nMany of the things I learned in school were largely irrelevant. I couldn't use a calculator to do long division. After I passed those early elementary school years I never did long division again. I wouldn't even argue learning the long division algo is mandatory. It's nice to have learnt it I guess, but I spent way too many hours on it. I can see learning fundamentals of essay writing, etc, are great, but why can't we just evolve to learn more effective things in life? ChatGPT should be used as a tool, not viewed as a detriment.", ">\n\nIt'd suggest that the best way to educate them is to embrace ChatGBT and teach them to use it well. Your method is a bit like teaching kids to do math without calculators or accounting without excel or financial software. There is some value, but it runs out very quickly and you're at a social and competetive disadvantage for taking some archane principled approach to education that is more of a defense of \"how we used to do it\".\nI'm old enough to remember when using a word processor was sometime forbidden for reasons of fairness - that seems entirely disconnected now from doing good work and it's almost hard to envision the thought process of those who thought everything should be hand written for students. \nIsn't the kid who is amazing at utilizing tools like ChatGBT going to do much better in the world than the one who does not? Your idea of \"proper education\" would easily regress back to needing to do all subjects scrawled in dirt with sticks and grunted in non-standardized language.", ">\n\nOR, chatgpt will be a great boon to the entire education system:\nIncreased accessibility: ChatGPT and other AI-powered systems can provide education to individuals who otherwise would not have access to it, due to geographical, financial, or other barriers.\n\nPersonalized learning: ChatGPT can provide personalized education experiences based on each student's strengths, weaknesses, and learning style.\n\n24/7 availability: ChatGPT can operate 24/7, providing students with access to education at any time, anywhere, which can be especially beneficial for those with demanding schedules or for individuals in remote areas.\n\nScalability: ChatGPT can provide education to a large number of students simultaneously, which could help to address the shortage of teachers and resources in some areas.\n\nCost-effectiveness: ChatGPT can be a more cost-effective option for providing education compared to traditional methods, as it does not require physical classrooms or teachers.\n\nImproved student engagement: ChatGPT can provide interactive, engaging learning experiences that can hold students' attention and foster deeper learning.\n\n--Source: ChatGPT", ">\n\nThere a lots of places where texts and exams are “open book”. The questions have to be written differently, and the point is that you’re not testing someone’s ability to memorize, but rather their ability to understand. This is a more difficult test to write, so in theory AI could force education to improve since everyone would a virtual tutor with them at all times.", ">\n\nI'm a teacher and I've been thinking a lot about this the last couple months. Changes within the education system/curriculum/syllabus/retraining of teachers will take far too long to keep up with the ease of access to, and success of, chatgpt and AI in general. \nThe only solution moving forward both short and long term is to embrace it, there is no stopping it now anyway and if we don't all want to be out of a job in 5 years we need to - \n- demonstrate feasible/moral/ethical use of such tools\n- create more opportunities for collaborative learning/hands-on/problem solving tasks and ones that increase communication skills between peers. \nHow this applies to each individual, specific task will vary and must require a lot of creativity and trial and error, but I think relying too heavily on your department of education to handle this (or most 'boots on the ground' problems) will ultimately only degrade a students experience and ability for learning.", ">\n\nI'm with you on what you're trying to accomplish. I just don't know that it's the \"best\" way. \nFor instance, how is homework performed in school superior to trusting the kids to learn the material, which would then be tested by oral exam? And yes, I do believe that asking a student to verbally explain a topic is a really good way to gauge mastery.", ">\n\nThere is not a hope in hell that we'll go back to hand written stuff. That's not how technology works. As the music companies. There are better ways to show you know a subject, for sure, than the current out of-date ones. That's for sure. Have you ever taken an on-line exam?", ">\n\nI argue to let them use chatGPT as it will be their future. This is similar to my generations \"you'll never walk around with a calculator so learn math.\" The future children will grow into a society where work means utilizing AI tech to help them thrive. If chatGPT helps them write an essay, and it's good, it means they're using resources. I agree, however, that we should supplement this with actual reading and writing.", ">\n\nI would argue that most of time that ChatGPT and similar technologies is going to be an issue is in 8-12 grade and college.\nThis technology is not going away, and it's only going to improve. Personally I would treat it like calculators, audio books and spell check.\nTech kids how to use the technology properly. Sure it's somewhat handy to calculate numbers in your head, but having the ability to do math in your head does not give you much of an advantage in today's world and not being able to doesn't hurt you much. But it's still critical to know formulas and how to peace together algebraic statements and word problems. \nKnowing how to spell properly is less important than knowing proper word usage - most times you're writing something it can be spell-checked in real time. Sure it's \"terrible that today's kids...\" don't know how to spell... but it's not going to affect their career. \nEnter ChatGPT - same thing. Should I spend the time to write a white paper on the changing advertising landscape to alert my boss about the a potential seismic shift in advertising revenue, or should I ask ChatGPT to write it? As a user I have to understand its limits and potential copywrite issues, but even more importantly how to verify that what it writes is correct and targeting the right audience. Is data from before 2020 going to be recent and accurate enough for my thesis? How do I supplement the discussion with real-world data? \nThis is our new reality. We should be learning how to use the tools properly, not trying to figure out to lock it down (which frankly makes as much sense as locking down the use of calculators or spell check).", ">\n\nI think there are already apps in place that are able to detect AI generated text (Read this article).\nAlso, I think a better method would be to simply have a database of ChatGPT (could be encrypted) generated text and make it available to already existing software that is use to detect plagiarism (this is just an exemple amongst many)", ">\n\nFrankly I don’t think high schoolers and below should be given homework or tests at all. One learns magnitudes better through exploration as opposed to mindless repetition. Engage with these kids intellectually, make them free thinking Athenians, not bags of knowledge of which they have no idea how to use.\nDoes it not surprise anyone that we train people for over a decade in intellect yet hardly have any intellectuals?", ">\n\nI would argue that society would be better off spending resources on teaching children how to use this tool effectively. Knowing how to get the right answer is what matters in this world.", ">\n\nThen answer this: Well why learn math at all? Seriously.\nWhy learn he concept of subtraction let alone division? I could and society has argued that with the advent of digital calculators. \nYet we learn it. \nLater we use calculators to take the mundane and already known processes to the next level. We abstract away the mundane. \nAs a EE having worked and am working on products you may be using right now to read this, when I develop new silicon and chips I don’t break out Karnaugh maps and lay down circuit using a T square and stencils of gates. But I sure the hell know what I’m doing and expect the tools to do for me. \nTeaching fundamentals of reading, writing, arithmetic, essays, research are just that fundamental.", ">\n\nI’d argue that the vast majority don’t need anything beyond basic math anyways. \nGo ask the average adult if they know the quadratic equation and what it means and you’d probably be disappointed.", ">\n\nChatGPT is here to stay, you'd better advocate for teaching people how to make the most of it and use it wisely instead of pretending it doesn't exist.\nOne of my favourite teachers always told students to use the best tools there are.", ">\n\nI think it depends completely on the topic. In my field of study, it’s fairly easy to come up with term paper assignments that the bot would be useless for. \nLooking back at the paper I wrote last year, I don’t see how any current bot could have helped, as it isn’t able to read or summarize specific sources (yet?).\nAn example of the type of assignments we get is “Discuss the role of state capacity in x and x conflict in light of (specific research paper)‘s dimensions of state capacity - do your findings confirm the findings of (authors), why or why not?\nThis way of combining literature made it difficult even for me to be on top of it, as there were no sources that had attempted this exact combination - it has to be original. \nAlso, I find it’s the best way to learn, because you have to rely on your own judgement and there are no shortcuts, even asking the professor was unhelpful as he wasn’t too familiar with the details.", ">\n\nThis is not the best way.", ">\n\n\nThese homework rooms would have Internet connected computers for use but access to ChatGPT would be filtered and blocked.\n\nThis wouldn't be feasible, there's far too many roundabout ways to still access ChatGPT. Security measures like domain filtering are just unproductive games of whack-a-mole. \nEdit: removed all the other stuff I wrote, as those points have already been mentioned in previous top-level comments.", ">\n\nHomework shouldn’t be the go-to method of “education” to begin with. Imo Universities should focus on the integral part of education: the lectures. Tools like chatgpt can help student who are actually interested in a subject to learn more easily about it, but whether students actually learn anything or not from a class won’t change regardless of if work is authentic or copied from an AI\nSource: I’m a college student and have had experience in both supervised environments where we had to do work without the use of computers/phones and solely-online environments where many students cheated", ">\n\nWhile this could work, it is not necessarily the best way in terms of accessibility and of learning in general. \nFirst, students with ADHD and certain other conditions may not necessarily be the able to be productive at all times, or at the specific time they have to work on those computers, especially if those computers are not in an environment ideal to that specific person. It would also not be very feasible to give students enough time on these computers to complete the bigger assignments and essays. \nSecond, while ChatGPT is quite advanced, it simply works by looking at language patterns and often gets factual details incorrect. For example, with bigger coding problems, it tries to import modules that do not exist or call on functions that it has not defined. In literature, it cannot analyze texts on much more than a surface level. I will admit it can use secondary sources for textual analysis, however, it is unable to come up with a clear thesis on its own. \nAdditionally, take-home tests can be just as easily cheated on using a normal Google search, and usually test thinking skills rather than understanding and knowledge. \nFinally, essay-writing and other types of assignments are generally not ideal for learning as they are only one type of skill, and university professors are recognizing this. Not only do they not work for all learning styles, but they are only used so commonly because of tradition. University professors are structuring assignments around ways that are innovative enough that ChatGPT is unable to work on them. Along with requiring specific readings which the AI might not have access to, and citing of all sources (which has always been a requirement that the AI might trip up on), they are also going away from the traditional essay format into others. For example, I am studying literature, a relatively essay-heavy field, and in my past few courses I have been asked to analyze comics (which the AI cannot read), edit other people’s essays and articles (from past courses), create a mock syllabus or lesson plan with justifications for each reading, and create annotated bibliographies as a stepping stone to an essay. All of these not only require different skills and encourage different types of learning and research but are quite difficult for an AI to do. \nAll in all, while your suggestion is great, the very nature of the AI and the fact that it exists at all is perhaps a sign that the best course of action is to rework the way we think about evaluation. After all, if an evaluation is such that an AI can complete it without the ability to actually think (it works by using observed language patterns), then perhaps the evaluation is not ideal.", ">\n\nI bet teachers and people thought the same thing about calculators when they came out or 1990s internet. AI bots like chat GPT are just a tool.", ">\n\nAll this effectively does is train kids to accomplish goals of a type that do not exist in the real world in a situation they will never realistically encounter. A better goal is adjusting testing criteria to account for this.\nThere might be very specific sets of knowledge for which rote memorization is appropriate, and for those, the air gapped testing may be appropriate. But I believe those are the exception rather than the rule. By and large, teaching kids to effectively utilize the tools that will be available to them is what we should be doing.", ">\n\nImagine learning where the only books are hand written.\nThe printing press took out a huge amount of repetitive labor in the learning process.\nAI/ChatGPT stands a good chance of removing a huge amount knowledge labor which stands between an idea and the end product. Learning to use the AI to best effect the Idea->End Product Chain is more important than worrying about memorizing formulae we will likely never need to remember. \nThe effort to restrict ChatGPT is just education system worrying about their Cheese Being Moved.", ">\n\nThis just doesn't make any sense to me. You're arguing that we shouldn't allow students to use tools they would have at their disposal in a real working environment, and for what? Why wouldn't you want students to use every tool at their disposal? How exactly is handicapping them helping them to understand the coursework?\nA much better approach would be to fundamentally alter how we teach to better prepare them for the workforce. Encouraging collaboration and creative problem solving skills is much more practical and effective.", ">\n\nChatGPT may pass the Bar, but I highly doubt it will replace lawyers or other professionals. \nThe whole point of credentialing is to drive accountability. Anyone can study the law and cite precedent without a law degree. Actually representing a client in a court of law requires oversight and knowledge. ChatGPT isn't perfect - it will make mistakes from time to time. So who is responsible when it makes a mistake? When is a client (who is not familiar with the law) supposed to know that a mistake has been made on their behalf? For this reason, until ChatGPT is literally perfect you're always going to need a credentialed professional to review the output.\nFor the record, I think ChatGPT is wonderful. But it's a tool that people will use, not a full-fledged replacement for professionals. My employer (a Fortune 500 company) has already rejected its use for internal projects. IT has the website blocked.", ">\n\nThe kids that are educated without its use will fall behind in business when faced with kids that are using it to its fullest extent.\nYou've successfully made an argument for people to succeed in a test that is worthless in the real world. Its parameters don't match.", ">\n\nThe best way to educate children is to teach them skills and strategies that will actually serve them in the workplace of the future. \nChatGPT already has reached the point of replacing humans (See Buzzfeed news). If ChatGPT can take the test or do the homework then what value is that education going to be to these students? Especially older students will quickly see rote memorization as a waste of time and so yes they probably will cheat if they have the opportunity. Trying to force these things to be “learned” and prove that knowledge by brute force banning things is going to be a costly uphill battle.", ">\n\nWhat if we modify how essays are written by students, by asking them to include citations (which is something ChatGPT can’t do)?\nWe can’t stop new tools from making old methods obsolete. But we can focus on enhancing critical thinking of students in a stepwise manner. When a new tool is created, think about how you can adapt rather than resist it.", ">\n\nWhy not just train an ai to spot ai written papers?", ">\n\nWhat about gradually putting more emphasis on oral assignments?", ">\n\nEverything you said makes perfect sense...IF the goal was to teach children simply how to write the perfect standard essay. But that is a very limited way of viewing education and what its real goal is. The real goal of education is to teach children how to think. To come up with the right questions, not just the right answers. In a world where a \"good enough\" essay on literally anything can be conjured as if by magic by a machine, what's the actual value of that exercise now? For a very long time teachers have used the essay as a way to evaluate how a person thinks. Now that a machine can write it for you, we need new ways to evaluate how students think. That's the real task we are facing. Fuck the essay, just like we ditched the slide rule for calculators and later computers, etc. Tools change but the real game remains the same: Think for yourself!", ">\n\nI'd say the best way would be to accept the reality of changing technology and reevaluating the approach we have towards education as a whole.\nGranted, I'd say that's only one half of the picture: reassessing how we conceive if jobs and labour in the face of increasing automation goes along with that, and I think neither really works without the other.\nBottom line is that human labour is more and more obsolete as time goes on, so human jobs will be less and less in demand (I'd argue moving away from a capitalistic system is the right call, but even if you don't, automation is still an incentive).\nSince a large part of the incentive of our current education system is \"prepare you for a job\" I think the whole thing is going to fall short in light of these kinds of systems developing.\nTheres lots of people now who pursue knowledge as a project of passion, rather than a means to an end, and I think moving to a system that supports and encourages that kind of ambition is the way to go.", ">\n\nI disagree. We should learn to use the tools we have efficiently. Otherwise you are not learning for your career but for some professors ego", ">\n\nThat’s not “education in the era of ChatGPT.” That’s education in the era before ChatGPT while we figure out what the world with ChatGPT will look like so we have some idea of what to do with it.\nThat’s also not “educating,” that’s just “assessment.” Assessment is simply a measuring system for education. As long as you think of the acquisition of knowledge and skill as requiring knowledge regurgitation and skill performance in isolation and divorced from context/individualized, then you’re going to end up at necessitating a kind of geofenced, Luddite assessment model. The training itself predicates the assessment method. How we assess is defined by how we teach, and vice versa.\nThe best assessment method to gauge understanding is, and always has been, conversation.\nAll we need to do is pair assessment with regular conversation between qualified teacher and student to determine if personal comprehension is present. Not an interview, not an interrogation — conversation. Problem solving performance contexts are also great revealer of internalized knowledge and skill.\nChatGPT is a relative nonissue if your approach to assessment is at all human.\nIt’s only a problem when you’re trying to mechanize and dehumanized education. “Rigorous” does not mean “mechanical.” We are going to have to trust the professional, knowledge- and skill-assessing judgements of humans who already know and can do.\nEducation reverts to having more emphasis on apprenticeship and mentorship models, where the relationship itself is part of the learning process. \n(The “accountability!” cranks are gonna love that…)", ">\n\nI have a strong suspicion that discussions like this, while very interesting, will be obsolete long before any changes can actually be implemented in schools. In fact, I'm pretty sure schools will be gone entirely in the near future.\nAs of right now, you can be taught almost any subject by an exceptionally well-spoken, fast and infinitely patient teacher called GPT to a university level, if not higher. Try it right now - go ask GPT to explain the political situation that allowed Alexander the Great to conquer Persia, or ask it to explain the raytracing algorithm. If there's a part you don't understand, ask it to clarify. You'll be amazed how accessible it makes advanced topics.\nNow, how long before we have VR software with a realistic-looking AI teacher, with an AI-generated voice, who can do the same thing, but respond to students' voices and use body language and visual demonstrations? Five years?\nHow long after that before this tech is cheap, and of such high quality that sending your kids to school will be a worse education?\nNow in, say, 20 years, we could have an AI system that takes a DNA sample, analyses a students genotype to understand what subjects they will be naturally good at, what education approaches will be most successful, and continuously improves its model of the student's behavior by observing them. It crafts a decades-long education journey tailored to the individual, and accompanies them the entire way.\nTeachers, as far as they've existed so far, don't have a chance.", ">\n\nAre you trying to test someone or teach them?\nIf the latter, why do you care about cheating? This reminds me of the ol' teachers who used to restrict calculators because \"you won't always have a calculator with you.\"", ">\n\nYou forget that for 99% of homework students could just copy each other's work. Having the answers out in the world accessible is not a new problem. You just make homework a small part of the grades and you make sure students understand it's important to actually do it or they won't do well on the tests.", ">\n\nThere are so many people that can’t do the basic math examples you mentioned somewhere and they went to school at a time when there were no calculators.\nOn the other hand I was allowed to use calculators in school pretty much the moment I left elementary school and I am really quite good at math even without assistance.\nTool usage is one of humanities key features and trying to work against it instead of finding ways to incorporate new technology into school and life seems backwards.", ">\n\nIronically the teacher will have to use an AI to decipher the \"hand written\" assignments.", ">\n\nYou can't force people to learn.", ">\n\nWhat about teaching how to think rather than how to memorize? Just a thought 💭", ">\n\nThey need to get rid of homework, and have students do their work while they're at school. It's awful, they just pile it on, even if a class only has a little homework that day, there's like 6 or 7 classes so it's a nightmare for students. Seems like the only way to prevent cheating is have them do work in class, so I hope for the students sake, they do that.", ">\n\nI’ll throw my idea into the ring, though we’re still a few years off from this technology:\nWe should have students interact with AI tutors that can prompt them questions and point out details. Then they can collaborate on assignments, and the AI tutor can give feedback and suggest snippets. The AI can evaluate their work and their engagement with the material.", ">\n\nOne of Transformers main applications is in search. Ie you get a set of embeddings you can compare the pairwise distances between embedding and get a list of scores that tell you which embeddings are most similar to the input. \nEssentially tools like google are made to reduce the search space for a given query collect likely links and then rerank the most likely results. \nChatgpt basically does this in a more direct way of searching through a space of potential responses. Basically trained on a task to predict next token given the previous tokens or fill in a mask\nTransformers permeate everything students use from the recommendation algorithms on TikTok Facebook, YouTube to search systems in google. \nIn my opinion students should absolutely not be taught to fear these tools tho I do agree they be tested in constrained environments to challenge them. Current systems should not be used to learn unless you have a clear understanding and are willing to check every word and check your reasoning. Future systems will be much better though so this problem isn’t going anywhere. \nIf anything there should be a push to make these ideas more interpretable to a younger audience and give them the tools to navigate an increasingly complex market of ideas. They should be aware of the limitations and how when they use a piece of software their actions and the actions of those around them are influencing what they see next. \nIt should be used and taught with rigor. \nIt’s programming 2.0", ">\n\nDude no; \nChatGPT is the computer. \nDo you want to be the education system that banned the computer and then wondered why all the other education systems output modern tech workers, while your education system kept outputting chimney sweeps and car factory workers?", ">\n\nHW only exists to make students practice, and generally is worth less than 20% of the grade in a class. If a student chooses to use chat GPT to bypass it then that’s the student’s loss.\nUltimately exams are what schools use to evaluate a students knowledge and I don’t think that’s going to change anytime soon", ">\n\nThere are already programs that check if something was written by an AI or not. Also no student I know actually uses chatGPT for major assignments because chatGPT doesn’t know every text to ever be published so it doesn’t understand the context, and most of the time will just bullshit an answer that’s incorrect.\nEveryone I know that uses chatGPT for school do so for either for assignments so small and simple that it doesn’t make sense to quarantine, or they use it as a more advanced google that can answer questions more accurately than a search engine could, essentially just saving time.\n(most) students are using chatGPT largely as a productivity and time management tool rather than to cheat.", ">\n\nThis is like saying “in the age of calculators, the only way to ensure kids learn maths is to ban calculators in school”. If looked at correctly, chatgpt is an effect multiplier, learning just has to be rejigged to have kids learn to do things that they can’t simply ask chatgpt to do for them.", ">\n\nLess course work and more exams is the future in a world with chatGPT.", ">\n\nChatGPT will be a big no issue soon. I work in a research field and this was something we worried about last year. As of now there are multiple tools and even more being developed that catch the use of ChatGPT. There has been research published that list ChatGPT as a co-author, but for most research, and use by students, it will simply be forbidden and will easily be caught as well. The program does well but it has a particular style that can be caught. Again it will be a non-issue soon.", ">\n\nThis is like forbidding people to use a calculator because it can give you the result instant. A better way is to teach them how to use the calculator, because its here now and won't go away. Same with GPT. Children can learn way better/faster with ChatGPD if used correctly. Imaging having a private teacher for free which helps you learning every time of the day.", ">\n\nLet me ask you this. If ChatGPT could complete a students whole assignment, what would that student have learned from doing that assignment on their own that won’t simply be replaced with ChatGPT by a employer in the future?\nEven if ChatGPT doesn’t replace workers for a decade, why teach students skills that will inevitably be replaced and leave said students jobless in a decade?\nChatGPT won’t only be used in the workforce either. Linus Tech Tips has a video showing how ChatGPT can help people learn new skills and do troubleshooting on their own. If I remember correctly, he manages to completely build a pc by only strictly following what ChatGPT tells him to. It even managed to suggest the best parts for that computers specific use case. It was nowhere near perfect, but in the future it will get there.\nSince ChatGPT is such a useful tool in the workforce and at home, I think it’s crucial we teach students how to use it instead of banning them from it. Maybe students should be given a problem and tasked to use ChatGPT to find the solution or have students attempt to learn a new topic with ChatGPT. I’m not a teacher, I just thought of those examples of the top of my head. I’m sure qualified teachers could think of better assignments than me.\nI could see ChatGPT helping a mechanic diagnose an issue so the mechanic could spend more time fixing the problem rather than diagnosing and I can think of a few examples in other jobs as well where ChatGPT will help a worker be more efficient and save more time.\nI think, if anything, we’re setting students up for failure by not teaching them about these tools that will take over the workforce and help in everyday life.", ">\n\nYou’ll still have to pass a test. Relax.", ">\n\nIt “fairs” extremely well? Maybe some additional time spent observing ChatGPT could actually benefit some", ">\n\nThere’s just no way you can use ChatGPT to do all of your work for you and be successful at any moderately high level of academic pursuit. Not without learning the material yourself, and if you’ve done that, I don’t think it matters so much whether you used chatGPT and for what along the way.\nFrankly if you start our using chatGPT early in school, you won’t even be able to ask the right questions in the right way and include the necessary refinements to do more complex and demanding assignments down the road. \nAlso, tests are still a thing aren’t they? ChatGPT doesn’t help you perform in person in a monitored environment - not in a way that would allow you to skip learning the material. I don’t really get this aspect of your cmv. As long as tests don’t allow access to ChatGPT, anyone who didn’t learn the material is going to be exposed..", ">\n\nThere are already programs that detect ChatGPT writing.", ">\n\nThe children who want to cheat will always find a way to do so. It doesn’t matter how much you do to restrict it, it’ll just make them find new means of doing so. \nSource: I did GCSE’s in the UK, AP in the US. Trust, kids will cheat even in sterile environments. Especially if it’s a huge room and there are few moderators. A lot of us are scared of repercussions but those who aren’t won’t let anything stand in there way—region and proctoring be damned.", ">\n\nI require them to complete an outline first. Outline must be submitted to me before I take the essay. Google doc lets you see that they write it and when each sentence was written. It’s helped.", ">\n\nCHATGPT is a tool, and in some applications (not all), it can help students do their homework. Consider the calculator. Do students not need to learn formulas and critical thinking just because they can punch numbers into calculators?\nNo, math is still a skill that is valuable if for no other reason then because it trains your brain to solve problems.\nOne of the things that surprises me is that ChatGPT can use words and explain things to students even when a teacher is not available or when there isn’t one. we should consider this an educational opportunity rather than a disadvantage.\nThere are so many amazing things we humans can do when we simply have tools to help us. ChatGPT is no different.", ">\n\nYou can’t force people to live in the past. Chat GPT is here to stay. Education now needs to focus on teaching people how to use AI, and how to develop a skill that can’t be replaced by AI.", ">\n\nHow about getting students engaged in what they’re learning and excited to learn. Find what they’re good at and double down on it. Don’t make school a fucking quarantine bubble. Socialize, allow them to teach and learn from each other. Replace the potential for cheating with collaboration assignments in person. “Children will cheat if given the opportunity” is such horse shit. If somebody doesn’t know or wasn’t taught something well then yea they’re gonna look to get it right so they can obtain approval. How about teaching them so they won’t cheat??", ">\n\nThats not it. I don’t have an answer for you, but thats not it.", ">\n\nHow about just have the kids do a presentation on \"their\" report with Q&A at the end. They'll have no choice but to know the info.... which is the point.", ">\n\nWell, making an AI that detects if something was made by an AI shouldnt be hard", ">\n\nI wonder if anyone has tried training a machine to look at assignments and give a confidence interval of the assignment being either human or machine in origin.", ">\n\nYeah we call that stuff examns...", ">\n\nThe problem with your suggested approach is that it just reinforces the current failures of the education system. It doesn't actually teach us the skills that you will be able to use in the field. \n\nYou can look up formulas for physics and you can double check online for any coding questions. Chat gpt is a tool and I think forbidding students from using it will just be a disservice to them and everyone in the future. It's not going to go away any time soon so how about instead of teaching children to cheat more effectively, we teach them how to use chat gpt to its full potential? It can speed up so many tasks to such a degree that students will be able to recieve more advanced education in the time that was saved by using chat gpt", ">\n\nI mean, there are plenty of good reasons already said, but wouldn't it just be easy to cheat. You get home, ask Chat.gpt for a result, print it out. Bring it with you to the school quarantine, copy it into the computer. (Unless you would like a full strip search of the students upon entering, which is wrong in so many ways)", ">\n\nI could use this in my program all I wanted and pass courses with perfect scores, and at the end of my degree I’d have a licensure exam that I’d fail cause I didn’t learn anything.", ">\n\nGreat idea! While let's just ignore the real world and keep our heads in the sand. Let's also get rid of computers and ink pens and go back to stone and chisel!", ">\n\nInstead of asking students to write ...ask them to spot the mistakes and correct the essays.\nThat requires way more knowledge and mastership.", ">\n\nI feel like this is a modern day equivalent to saying that now that the internet is available at the family computer, students must complete their work entirely under supervision.\nAI is here and more that is better is coming and people need to learn how to integrate with it rather than fight it. It's going to take some jobs. Just like the cotton gin and steam drill took work from people who then immediately transitioned to other work that the machine couldn't do and to running to machine itself. People will need to run ChatGPT. Feed it, verify its output, clean it up and submit the report based on CGPT4.0's write up. Individuals need to know the material, sure, but we can't really keep students off the internet and trying to do so just wastes resources and makes teachers pull their hair out.", ">\n\nI think the problem lies deeper. Humans and especially children want to learn and understand. One of the most common words a 5 y/o uses is \"why\". \"Why do airplanes fly? Why is the sun bright? Why can't I have candy? Why isn't the house collapsing? It is bigger than my sandcastle that fell over.\" And the education system should be ashamed of itself that it kills this curiosity and motivation of the children. I don't want to go too deep into possible solutions. Just one anecdote from myself:\nWe had to produce an educational video. For that we got 20 hours time. We worked around 30, met at my apartment and filmed after a day off homeschooling. Nobody thought of cheating with chatgpt because we have the script our character. On the other hand: I should colour a heart now and I don't want to, so I don't do it.\nEveryone has their video and colouring schematics and we should encourage the prior to the latter, making the demand for cheating less important \nAlso we sent around our homeworks all the time. The concept of homework isn't great at all", ">\n\nHomeschool. Problem solved.", ">\n\nSorry, u/Own-Listen1552 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nHow is ChatGPT different than what Math teachers had to go through when calculators become a thing?\nAt first, they banned them \"because the students have to learn the material!\" \nStudents rebelled because \"We'll always have a calculator available.\"\nEventually, teachers relented and now allow calculators in the class.\nDo you see the trajectory of ChatGPT going any different?\nAs for ChatGPT improving, if everybody is using it then it won't be able to improve because the only new input will just be reinforcing feedback from its own work.\nAs for children cheating, how is using ChatGPT different than any other sort of plagiarism detection that teachers already have to deal with? Also, the makers of ChatGPT also provide a tool that will tell you if a particular work product was produced by it. Isn't that good enough of a deterrent?\nAir gapping the kids from legitimate research material seems to be a bit extreme to me.", ">\n\nWhen I was young, calculators weren't allowed. Later, we were allowed to use them, but only on some tests.\nPersonally, I thought that was stupid. It's like training a carpenter, but not allowing power tools.\nAI is here to stay. Teach them how to use that useful tool to maximum effect, instead of teaching a work method which will likely be obsolete within five years.", ">\n\nHow bout not putting children in a prison for 8 hours, but teach them how to learn and getting them interested and motivated for school. My biggest problem in School was how boring most of the teachers taught the material. Maybe dont let every random highly educated person be a teacher if they cant work with kids. When i had the right teacher he sort of started my hunger for knowledge about the themes he was teaching. Plus kids and teenagers hate doing what theyre told to do so i dont think that is a solution at all.", ">\n\nAgree that airgapped areas are necessary but the best way to educate children in the era of ChatGPT is to develop a ChatGPT based tool that quizzes children on homework they hand in.", ">\n\nMy moms a parent for middle schoolers, she says it's happened already a lot this semester, but the thing is, most can tell just from the sentence structure and fluidity, sometimes they are just still wrong answers or definitely not the answer they needed.", ">\n\nThere are other ways to determine a child's understanding of material. A friend of mine is a teacher and he asks students (11-16) to read read their essays out loud. If you can't read it, you definitely didn't write it. He also asks what certain sentences mean; if they can't tell him, they didn't write it. \nYou can also get children to give spoken presentations. Sure ChatGPT could write the presentation for you, but you would have to learn the content well enough to give the presentation.", ">\n\nLet the mentally oppressive and comically outdated state educational apparatus die and have it be replaced with something better.\nThe internet has changed everything - and now these bloated, outdated, and corrupt institutions exist only to hold us back like some parasitic vestige of times past." ]
Christo is a goddamn legend and the whole western world owes him for all the brave investigative work he’s done on the dirty Russians. I hope he’s got a good security detail to keep him safe so he can keep exposing the Russians in embarrassing ways for many years to come.	[]
> Every article is a masterclass in amazingly detailed investigation.	[ "Christo is a goddamn legend and the whole western world owes him for all the brave investigative work he’s done on the dirty Russians. I hope he’s got a good security detail to keep him safe so he can keep exposing the Russians in embarrassing ways for many years to come." ]
> This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 61%. (I'm a bot) Bulgarian investigative journalist and director of the Bellingcat investigative reporting group Christo Grozev is being forced to relocate from Austria, his home of nearly 20 years, due to the alleged threat posed to him by the Russian security services, the Viennese daily Falter reported on Wednesday. "I suspect that there are more Russian agents, informers and henchmen in the city than police officers," Grozev told Falter. In July Russia's Federal Security Service claimed that Grozev had been involved in a "Foiled plot" to hijack Russian fighter jets, though it did not say if it had ultimately pressed criminal charges against the journalist in absentia. Extended Summary \| FAQ \| Feedback \| Top keywords: Grozev^#1 Russian^#2 Falter^#3 Bellingcat^#4 Russia^#5	[ "Christo is a goddamn legend and the whole western world owes him for all the brave investigative work he’s done on the dirty Russians. I hope he’s got a good security detail to keep him safe so he can keep exposing the Russians in embarrassing ways for many years to come.", ">\n\nEvery article is a masterclass in amazingly detailed investigation." ]
> You know you're doing a really good job when...	[ "Christo is a goddamn legend and the whole western world owes him for all the brave investigative work he’s done on the dirty Russians. I hope he’s got a good security detail to keep him safe so he can keep exposing the Russians in embarrassing ways for many years to come.", ">\n\nEvery article is a masterclass in amazingly detailed investigation.", ">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 61%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nBulgarian investigative journalist and director of the Bellingcat investigative reporting group Christo Grozev is being forced to relocate from Austria, his home of nearly 20 years, due to the alleged threat posed to him by the Russian security services, the Viennese daily Falter reported on Wednesday.\n\"I suspect that there are more Russian agents, informers and henchmen in the city than police officers,\" Grozev told Falter.\nIn July Russia's Federal Security Service claimed that Grozev had been involved in a \"Foiled plot\" to hijack Russian fighter jets, though it did not say if it had ultimately pressed criminal charges against the journalist in absentia.\n\n\nExtended Summary \| FAQ \| Feedback \| Top keywords: Grozev^#1 Russian^#2 Falter^#3 Bellingcat^#4 Russia^#5" ]
> Austria is full of russian agents. Fpö is known to be directly paid by russia. Övp is as corrupt. Those 2 have 50%+ Austria is fucked.	[ "Christo is a goddamn legend and the whole western world owes him for all the brave investigative work he’s done on the dirty Russians. I hope he’s got a good security detail to keep him safe so he can keep exposing the Russians in embarrassing ways for many years to come.", ">\n\nEvery article is a masterclass in amazingly detailed investigation.", ">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 61%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nBulgarian investigative journalist and director of the Bellingcat investigative reporting group Christo Grozev is being forced to relocate from Austria, his home of nearly 20 years, due to the alleged threat posed to him by the Russian security services, the Viennese daily Falter reported on Wednesday.\n\"I suspect that there are more Russian agents, informers and henchmen in the city than police officers,\" Grozev told Falter.\nIn July Russia's Federal Security Service claimed that Grozev had been involved in a \"Foiled plot\" to hijack Russian fighter jets, though it did not say if it had ultimately pressed criminal charges against the journalist in absentia.\n\n\nExtended Summary \| FAQ \| Feedback \| Top keywords: Grozev^#1 Russian^#2 Falter^#3 Bellingcat^#4 Russia^#5", ">\n\nYou know you're doing a really good job when..." ]
> Unfortunately, he cannot find protection in his own country where the situation is even worse…	[ "Christo is a goddamn legend and the whole western world owes him for all the brave investigative work he’s done on the dirty Russians. I hope he’s got a good security detail to keep him safe so he can keep exposing the Russians in embarrassing ways for many years to come.", ">\n\nEvery article is a masterclass in amazingly detailed investigation.", ">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 61%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nBulgarian investigative journalist and director of the Bellingcat investigative reporting group Christo Grozev is being forced to relocate from Austria, his home of nearly 20 years, due to the alleged threat posed to him by the Russian security services, the Viennese daily Falter reported on Wednesday.\n\"I suspect that there are more Russian agents, informers and henchmen in the city than police officers,\" Grozev told Falter.\nIn July Russia's Federal Security Service claimed that Grozev had been involved in a \"Foiled plot\" to hijack Russian fighter jets, though it did not say if it had ultimately pressed criminal charges against the journalist in absentia.\n\n\nExtended Summary \| FAQ \| Feedback \| Top keywords: Grozev^#1 Russian^#2 Falter^#3 Bellingcat^#4 Russia^#5", ">\n\nYou know you're doing a really good job when...", ">\n\nAustria is full of russian agents.\nFpö is known to be directly paid by russia.\nÖvp is as corrupt.\nThose 2 have 50%+\nAustria is fucked." ]
>	[ "Christo is a goddamn legend and the whole western world owes him for all the brave investigative work he’s done on the dirty Russians. I hope he’s got a good security detail to keep him safe so he can keep exposing the Russians in embarrassing ways for many years to come.", ">\n\nEvery article is a masterclass in amazingly detailed investigation.", ">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 61%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nBulgarian investigative journalist and director of the Bellingcat investigative reporting group Christo Grozev is being forced to relocate from Austria, his home of nearly 20 years, due to the alleged threat posed to him by the Russian security services, the Viennese daily Falter reported on Wednesday.\n\"I suspect that there are more Russian agents, informers and henchmen in the city than police officers,\" Grozev told Falter.\nIn July Russia's Federal Security Service claimed that Grozev had been involved in a \"Foiled plot\" to hijack Russian fighter jets, though it did not say if it had ultimately pressed criminal charges against the journalist in absentia.\n\n\nExtended Summary \| FAQ \| Feedback \| Top keywords: Grozev^#1 Russian^#2 Falter^#3 Bellingcat^#4 Russia^#5", ">\n\nYou know you're doing a really good job when...", ">\n\nAustria is full of russian agents.\nFpö is known to be directly paid by russia.\nÖvp is as corrupt.\nThose 2 have 50%+\nAustria is fucked.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, he cannot find protection in his own country where the situation is even worse…" ]
So first off, I realize there’s probably not much that can be done about this, so this mostly me just venting. But theres several common occurrences on this sub that I frequently see that rub me the wrong way: The personal therapy posts. I’ve always felt that this sub is supposed to be about changing peoples views they have about some aspect of how the world works. But there are a lot of posts where it’s clearly people just looking for some kind of therapy/validation for their personal situation. “Change my view that my life doesn’t suck” or stuff that’s more meant for an r/AmITheAsshole kind of sub. The broad stroke generalizations based solely on personal anecdotes. I’ve also seen a lot of posts where someone will make an incredibly broad stroke generalization based on their single data point personal anecdote, and all it would reasonably take to change their view and prove them wrong is someone else’s personal anecdote demonstrating contrary to their point. Just the other day I saw some post where someone was basically like “I never got any use out of student clubs, therefore they are of no good to anybody, and should be banned.” There were immediately countless other people chiming in with their equally anecdotal stories that they saw great benefit from clubs at schools, so clearly OP is objectively wrong, and it should be an open and shut case, but the person wouldn’t change their view. Eventually they awarded a delta on some minor technicality, but I had jumped in to the convo after the delta had been awarded, and they were still rigidly holding on to their original view. Which brings me to my next point: People who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. It feels like a loophole that often gets exploited so people can soapbox. Again, don’t know what can be done, but it’s annoying nonetheless This is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting. Paragraphs exist for a reason, and it’s really annoying when the OP is this MASSIVE wall of text with no paragraph breaks. I wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting. I know that y’all have no control over it, but in my opinion, downvoting is meant to be used to filter out spam and obvious trolls. But in my experience the Reddit hive mind loves to just pound on the downvote button simply because someone disagrees with them, and once a comment has a couple of negative points, the Reddit hive mind loves to gang up on a slightly downvoted comment and downvote it into oblivion, until it eventually gets hidden. In a place that is supposed to be about open, rational and civil discourse, it’s frankly disrespectful. Again, I know that you have no control over it, but there are some subs that do have sticky messages discouraging downvoting precisely for this reason. Those are just some thoughts, and mostly just me venting. I understand that y’all don’t get paid, and I appreciate the work that you do.	[]
> People who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. Report those for Rule B. A minor technicality delta isn't protection from a Rule B removal. We often do remove posts that try to protect against removal using deltas like this. This is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting. Not much we can do about that one, sadly. I wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting. No one reads stickies and no matter what we try, Redditors won't use downvotes correctly. We'd disable them entirely if we could, but Reddit won't let us.	[ "So first off, I realize there’s probably not much that can be done about this, so this mostly me just venting.\nBut theres several common occurrences on this sub that I frequently see that rub me the wrong way:\n\n\nThe personal therapy posts. I’ve always felt that this sub is supposed to be about changing peoples views they have about some aspect of how the world works. But there are a lot of posts where it’s clearly people just looking for some kind of therapy/validation for their personal situation. “Change my view that my life doesn’t suck” or stuff that’s more meant for an r/AmITheAsshole kind of sub.\n\n\nThe broad stroke generalizations based solely on personal anecdotes. I’ve also seen a lot of posts where someone will make an incredibly broad stroke generalization based on their single data point personal anecdote, and all it would reasonably take to change their view and prove them wrong is someone else’s personal anecdote demonstrating contrary to their point. \n\n\nJust the other day I saw some post where someone was basically like “I never got any use out of student clubs, therefore they are of no good to anybody, and should be banned.” There were immediately countless other people chiming in with their equally anecdotal stories that they saw great benefit from clubs at schools, so clearly OP is objectively wrong, and it should be an open and shut case, but the person wouldn’t change their view. Eventually they awarded a delta on some minor technicality, but I had jumped in to the convo after the delta had been awarded, and they were still rigidly holding on to their original view. Which brings me to my next point:\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. It feels like a loophole that often gets exploited so people can soapbox. Again, don’t know what can be done, but it’s annoying nonetheless\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting. Paragraphs exist for a reason, and it’s really annoying when the OP is this MASSIVE wall of text with no paragraph breaks.\n\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting. I know that y’all have no control over it, but in my opinion, downvoting is meant to be used to filter out spam and obvious trolls. \n\n\nBut in my experience the Reddit hive mind loves to just pound on the downvote button simply because someone disagrees with them, and once a comment has a couple of negative points, the Reddit hive mind loves to gang up on a slightly downvoted comment and downvote it into oblivion, until it eventually gets hidden. In a place that is supposed to be about open, rational and civil discourse, it’s frankly disrespectful. Again, I know that you have no control over it, but there are some subs that do have sticky messages discouraging downvoting precisely for this reason.\nThose are just some thoughts, and mostly just me venting. I understand that y’all don’t get paid, and I appreciate the work that you do." ]
> This is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting. Not much we can do about that one, sadly. Sure there is, make some rules about formatting and take down posts that don't follow them. Plenty of other subs manage it just fine.	[ "So first off, I realize there’s probably not much that can be done about this, so this mostly me just venting.\nBut theres several common occurrences on this sub that I frequently see that rub me the wrong way:\n\n\nThe personal therapy posts. I’ve always felt that this sub is supposed to be about changing peoples views they have about some aspect of how the world works. But there are a lot of posts where it’s clearly people just looking for some kind of therapy/validation for their personal situation. “Change my view that my life doesn’t suck” or stuff that’s more meant for an r/AmITheAsshole kind of sub.\n\n\nThe broad stroke generalizations based solely on personal anecdotes. I’ve also seen a lot of posts where someone will make an incredibly broad stroke generalization based on their single data point personal anecdote, and all it would reasonably take to change their view and prove them wrong is someone else’s personal anecdote demonstrating contrary to their point. \n\n\nJust the other day I saw some post where someone was basically like “I never got any use out of student clubs, therefore they are of no good to anybody, and should be banned.” There were immediately countless other people chiming in with their equally anecdotal stories that they saw great benefit from clubs at schools, so clearly OP is objectively wrong, and it should be an open and shut case, but the person wouldn’t change their view. Eventually they awarded a delta on some minor technicality, but I had jumped in to the convo after the delta had been awarded, and they were still rigidly holding on to their original view. Which brings me to my next point:\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. It feels like a loophole that often gets exploited so people can soapbox. Again, don’t know what can be done, but it’s annoying nonetheless\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting. Paragraphs exist for a reason, and it’s really annoying when the OP is this MASSIVE wall of text with no paragraph breaks.\n\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting. I know that y’all have no control over it, but in my opinion, downvoting is meant to be used to filter out spam and obvious trolls. \n\n\nBut in my experience the Reddit hive mind loves to just pound on the downvote button simply because someone disagrees with them, and once a comment has a couple of negative points, the Reddit hive mind loves to gang up on a slightly downvoted comment and downvote it into oblivion, until it eventually gets hidden. In a place that is supposed to be about open, rational and civil discourse, it’s frankly disrespectful. Again, I know that you have no control over it, but there are some subs that do have sticky messages discouraging downvoting precisely for this reason.\nThose are just some thoughts, and mostly just me venting. I understand that y’all don’t get paid, and I appreciate the work that you do.", ">\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. \n\nReport those for Rule B. A minor technicality delta isn't protection from a Rule B removal. We often do remove posts that try to protect against removal using deltas like this.\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\n\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting.\n\nNo one reads stickies and no matter what we try, Redditors won't use downvotes correctly. We'd disable them entirely if we could, but Reddit won't let us." ]
> I mean, we do have rules about formatting, but those are 100% objective. Rule A requires 500+ characters, while Rule C requires the title to begin with “CMV:”. I’m not sure how to make such a rule for paragraphs that either could be automated or wouldn’t be time-consuming to moderate. What is your suggestion?	[ "So first off, I realize there’s probably not much that can be done about this, so this mostly me just venting.\nBut theres several common occurrences on this sub that I frequently see that rub me the wrong way:\n\n\nThe personal therapy posts. I’ve always felt that this sub is supposed to be about changing peoples views they have about some aspect of how the world works. But there are a lot of posts where it’s clearly people just looking for some kind of therapy/validation for their personal situation. “Change my view that my life doesn’t suck” or stuff that’s more meant for an r/AmITheAsshole kind of sub.\n\n\nThe broad stroke generalizations based solely on personal anecdotes. I’ve also seen a lot of posts where someone will make an incredibly broad stroke generalization based on their single data point personal anecdote, and all it would reasonably take to change their view and prove them wrong is someone else’s personal anecdote demonstrating contrary to their point. \n\n\nJust the other day I saw some post where someone was basically like “I never got any use out of student clubs, therefore they are of no good to anybody, and should be banned.” There were immediately countless other people chiming in with their equally anecdotal stories that they saw great benefit from clubs at schools, so clearly OP is objectively wrong, and it should be an open and shut case, but the person wouldn’t change their view. Eventually they awarded a delta on some minor technicality, but I had jumped in to the convo after the delta had been awarded, and they were still rigidly holding on to their original view. Which brings me to my next point:\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. It feels like a loophole that often gets exploited so people can soapbox. Again, don’t know what can be done, but it’s annoying nonetheless\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting. Paragraphs exist for a reason, and it’s really annoying when the OP is this MASSIVE wall of text with no paragraph breaks.\n\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting. I know that y’all have no control over it, but in my opinion, downvoting is meant to be used to filter out spam and obvious trolls. \n\n\nBut in my experience the Reddit hive mind loves to just pound on the downvote button simply because someone disagrees with them, and once a comment has a couple of negative points, the Reddit hive mind loves to gang up on a slightly downvoted comment and downvote it into oblivion, until it eventually gets hidden. In a place that is supposed to be about open, rational and civil discourse, it’s frankly disrespectful. Again, I know that you have no control over it, but there are some subs that do have sticky messages discouraging downvoting precisely for this reason.\nThose are just some thoughts, and mostly just me venting. I understand that y’all don’t get paid, and I appreciate the work that you do.", ">\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. \n\nReport those for Rule B. A minor technicality delta isn't protection from a Rule B removal. We often do remove posts that try to protect against removal using deltas like this.\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\n\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting.\n\nNo one reads stickies and no matter what we try, Redditors won't use downvotes correctly. We'd disable them entirely if we could, but Reddit won't let us.", ">\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nSure there is, make some rules about formatting and take down posts that don't follow them. Plenty of other subs manage it just fine." ]
> I don't personally moderate any subreddits and I am not familiar with the tools available to do so. Perhaps you could reach out to the moderators of other subreddits that do have post formatting requirements to determine what strategies they use to enforce them. r/HobbyDrama is fairly strict that your post must be pretty comprehensive, they may be able to offer advice. I'm sure others would have some ideas. I would also break views down into 3 categories: philosophical views, preferential views and views regarding objective facts. Personally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. I feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts and follow some rules so you let shit fester on the front page, making it clear shit posts are acceptable.	[ "So first off, I realize there’s probably not much that can be done about this, so this mostly me just venting.\nBut theres several common occurrences on this sub that I frequently see that rub me the wrong way:\n\n\nThe personal therapy posts. I’ve always felt that this sub is supposed to be about changing peoples views they have about some aspect of how the world works. But there are a lot of posts where it’s clearly people just looking for some kind of therapy/validation for their personal situation. “Change my view that my life doesn’t suck” or stuff that’s more meant for an r/AmITheAsshole kind of sub.\n\n\nThe broad stroke generalizations based solely on personal anecdotes. I’ve also seen a lot of posts where someone will make an incredibly broad stroke generalization based on their single data point personal anecdote, and all it would reasonably take to change their view and prove them wrong is someone else’s personal anecdote demonstrating contrary to their point. \n\n\nJust the other day I saw some post where someone was basically like “I never got any use out of student clubs, therefore they are of no good to anybody, and should be banned.” There were immediately countless other people chiming in with their equally anecdotal stories that they saw great benefit from clubs at schools, so clearly OP is objectively wrong, and it should be an open and shut case, but the person wouldn’t change their view. Eventually they awarded a delta on some minor technicality, but I had jumped in to the convo after the delta had been awarded, and they were still rigidly holding on to their original view. Which brings me to my next point:\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. It feels like a loophole that often gets exploited so people can soapbox. Again, don’t know what can be done, but it’s annoying nonetheless\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting. Paragraphs exist for a reason, and it’s really annoying when the OP is this MASSIVE wall of text with no paragraph breaks.\n\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting. I know that y’all have no control over it, but in my opinion, downvoting is meant to be used to filter out spam and obvious trolls. \n\n\nBut in my experience the Reddit hive mind loves to just pound on the downvote button simply because someone disagrees with them, and once a comment has a couple of negative points, the Reddit hive mind loves to gang up on a slightly downvoted comment and downvote it into oblivion, until it eventually gets hidden. In a place that is supposed to be about open, rational and civil discourse, it’s frankly disrespectful. Again, I know that you have no control over it, but there are some subs that do have sticky messages discouraging downvoting precisely for this reason.\nThose are just some thoughts, and mostly just me venting. I understand that y’all don’t get paid, and I appreciate the work that you do.", ">\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. \n\nReport those for Rule B. A minor technicality delta isn't protection from a Rule B removal. We often do remove posts that try to protect against removal using deltas like this.\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\n\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting.\n\nNo one reads stickies and no matter what we try, Redditors won't use downvotes correctly. We'd disable them entirely if we could, but Reddit won't let us.", ">\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nSure there is, make some rules about formatting and take down posts that don't follow them. Plenty of other subs manage it just fine.", ">\n\nI mean, we do have rules about formatting, but those are 100% objective. Rule A requires 500+ characters, while Rule C requires the title to begin with “CMV:”. I’m not sure how to make such a rule for paragraphs that either could be automated or wouldn’t be time-consuming to moderate. What is your suggestion?" ]
> Personally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. That feels like a bridge too far, to be honest. CMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people. It's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, "Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently" and be met with civil, informative replies. The more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. Friction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. Forcing people to decide which of three categories their view falls into and then following a set of rules based on that category feels like bad friction. Case in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. Opening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition. I feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts I am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.	[ "So first off, I realize there’s probably not much that can be done about this, so this mostly me just venting.\nBut theres several common occurrences on this sub that I frequently see that rub me the wrong way:\n\n\nThe personal therapy posts. I’ve always felt that this sub is supposed to be about changing peoples views they have about some aspect of how the world works. But there are a lot of posts where it’s clearly people just looking for some kind of therapy/validation for their personal situation. “Change my view that my life doesn’t suck” or stuff that’s more meant for an r/AmITheAsshole kind of sub.\n\n\nThe broad stroke generalizations based solely on personal anecdotes. I’ve also seen a lot of posts where someone will make an incredibly broad stroke generalization based on their single data point personal anecdote, and all it would reasonably take to change their view and prove them wrong is someone else’s personal anecdote demonstrating contrary to their point. \n\n\nJust the other day I saw some post where someone was basically like “I never got any use out of student clubs, therefore they are of no good to anybody, and should be banned.” There were immediately countless other people chiming in with their equally anecdotal stories that they saw great benefit from clubs at schools, so clearly OP is objectively wrong, and it should be an open and shut case, but the person wouldn’t change their view. Eventually they awarded a delta on some minor technicality, but I had jumped in to the convo after the delta had been awarded, and they were still rigidly holding on to their original view. Which brings me to my next point:\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. It feels like a loophole that often gets exploited so people can soapbox. Again, don’t know what can be done, but it’s annoying nonetheless\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting. Paragraphs exist for a reason, and it’s really annoying when the OP is this MASSIVE wall of text with no paragraph breaks.\n\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting. I know that y’all have no control over it, but in my opinion, downvoting is meant to be used to filter out spam and obvious trolls. \n\n\nBut in my experience the Reddit hive mind loves to just pound on the downvote button simply because someone disagrees with them, and once a comment has a couple of negative points, the Reddit hive mind loves to gang up on a slightly downvoted comment and downvote it into oblivion, until it eventually gets hidden. In a place that is supposed to be about open, rational and civil discourse, it’s frankly disrespectful. Again, I know that you have no control over it, but there are some subs that do have sticky messages discouraging downvoting precisely for this reason.\nThose are just some thoughts, and mostly just me venting. I understand that y’all don’t get paid, and I appreciate the work that you do.", ">\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. \n\nReport those for Rule B. A minor technicality delta isn't protection from a Rule B removal. We often do remove posts that try to protect against removal using deltas like this.\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\n\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting.\n\nNo one reads stickies and no matter what we try, Redditors won't use downvotes correctly. We'd disable them entirely if we could, but Reddit won't let us.", ">\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nSure there is, make some rules about formatting and take down posts that don't follow them. Plenty of other subs manage it just fine.", ">\n\nI mean, we do have rules about formatting, but those are 100% objective. Rule A requires 500+ characters, while Rule C requires the title to begin with “CMV:”. I’m not sure how to make such a rule for paragraphs that either could be automated or wouldn’t be time-consuming to moderate. What is your suggestion?", ">\n\nI don't personally moderate any subreddits and I am not familiar with the tools available to do so. Perhaps you could reach out to the moderators of other subreddits that do have post formatting requirements to determine what strategies they use to enforce them. \nr/HobbyDrama is fairly strict that your post must be pretty comprehensive, they may be able to offer advice. I'm sure others would have some ideas. \nI would also break views down into 3 categories: philosophical views, preferential views and views regarding objective facts. \nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts and follow some rules so you let shit fester on the front page, making it clear shit posts are acceptable." ]
> Personally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. That feels like a bridge too far, to be honest. CMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people. It is reasonable to expect people to follow rules to engage in a useful service It's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, "Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently" and be met with civil, informative replies. But when we don't understand what someone believes or why we can't do that. The more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. This is actually a good thing since you have repeatedly stated you don't have adequate moderation resources. Friction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. People that are open minded will read the rules and if there post is taken down will follow the instructions to repost it. Case in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. Then they frankly weren't that open to it in the first place. Opening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition. I'd say 40% plus of posts never open up to critique, they are feels over realz garbage. They not only waste time they make other posts worse by making this a place where garbage is accepted. I feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts I am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder. Sometimes you need to make sacrifices to actually accomplish that mission rather than be a platform for misinformation. I would actually argue this subreddit damages the world right now.	[ "So first off, I realize there’s probably not much that can be done about this, so this mostly me just venting.\nBut theres several common occurrences on this sub that I frequently see that rub me the wrong way:\n\n\nThe personal therapy posts. I’ve always felt that this sub is supposed to be about changing peoples views they have about some aspect of how the world works. But there are a lot of posts where it’s clearly people just looking for some kind of therapy/validation for their personal situation. “Change my view that my life doesn’t suck” or stuff that’s more meant for an r/AmITheAsshole kind of sub.\n\n\nThe broad stroke generalizations based solely on personal anecdotes. I’ve also seen a lot of posts where someone will make an incredibly broad stroke generalization based on their single data point personal anecdote, and all it would reasonably take to change their view and prove them wrong is someone else’s personal anecdote demonstrating contrary to their point. \n\n\nJust the other day I saw some post where someone was basically like “I never got any use out of student clubs, therefore they are of no good to anybody, and should be banned.” There were immediately countless other people chiming in with their equally anecdotal stories that they saw great benefit from clubs at schools, so clearly OP is objectively wrong, and it should be an open and shut case, but the person wouldn’t change their view. Eventually they awarded a delta on some minor technicality, but I had jumped in to the convo after the delta had been awarded, and they were still rigidly holding on to their original view. Which brings me to my next point:\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. It feels like a loophole that often gets exploited so people can soapbox. Again, don’t know what can be done, but it’s annoying nonetheless\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting. Paragraphs exist for a reason, and it’s really annoying when the OP is this MASSIVE wall of text with no paragraph breaks.\n\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting. I know that y’all have no control over it, but in my opinion, downvoting is meant to be used to filter out spam and obvious trolls. \n\n\nBut in my experience the Reddit hive mind loves to just pound on the downvote button simply because someone disagrees with them, and once a comment has a couple of negative points, the Reddit hive mind loves to gang up on a slightly downvoted comment and downvote it into oblivion, until it eventually gets hidden. In a place that is supposed to be about open, rational and civil discourse, it’s frankly disrespectful. Again, I know that you have no control over it, but there are some subs that do have sticky messages discouraging downvoting precisely for this reason.\nThose are just some thoughts, and mostly just me venting. I understand that y’all don’t get paid, and I appreciate the work that you do.", ">\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. \n\nReport those for Rule B. A minor technicality delta isn't protection from a Rule B removal. We often do remove posts that try to protect against removal using deltas like this.\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\n\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting.\n\nNo one reads stickies and no matter what we try, Redditors won't use downvotes correctly. We'd disable them entirely if we could, but Reddit won't let us.", ">\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nSure there is, make some rules about formatting and take down posts that don't follow them. Plenty of other subs manage it just fine.", ">\n\nI mean, we do have rules about formatting, but those are 100% objective. Rule A requires 500+ characters, while Rule C requires the title to begin with “CMV:”. I’m not sure how to make such a rule for paragraphs that either could be automated or wouldn’t be time-consuming to moderate. What is your suggestion?", ">\n\nI don't personally moderate any subreddits and I am not familiar with the tools available to do so. Perhaps you could reach out to the moderators of other subreddits that do have post formatting requirements to determine what strategies they use to enforce them. \nr/HobbyDrama is fairly strict that your post must be pretty comprehensive, they may be able to offer advice. I'm sure others would have some ideas. \nI would also break views down into 3 categories: philosophical views, preferential views and views regarding objective facts. \nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts and follow some rules so you let shit fester on the front page, making it clear shit posts are acceptable.", ">\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people. It's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. Friction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. Forcing people to decide which of three categories their view falls into and then following a set of rules based on that category feels like bad friction.\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. Opening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder." ]
> "Fresh Friday" should start around US east coast morning because the sub is just completely dead each friday until 3pm in central european time. (obviously it won't make the sub super active but at least there could be one or two CMV)	[ "So first off, I realize there’s probably not much that can be done about this, so this mostly me just venting.\nBut theres several common occurrences on this sub that I frequently see that rub me the wrong way:\n\n\nThe personal therapy posts. I’ve always felt that this sub is supposed to be about changing peoples views they have about some aspect of how the world works. But there are a lot of posts where it’s clearly people just looking for some kind of therapy/validation for their personal situation. “Change my view that my life doesn’t suck” or stuff that’s more meant for an r/AmITheAsshole kind of sub.\n\n\nThe broad stroke generalizations based solely on personal anecdotes. I’ve also seen a lot of posts where someone will make an incredibly broad stroke generalization based on their single data point personal anecdote, and all it would reasonably take to change their view and prove them wrong is someone else’s personal anecdote demonstrating contrary to their point. \n\n\nJust the other day I saw some post where someone was basically like “I never got any use out of student clubs, therefore they are of no good to anybody, and should be banned.” There were immediately countless other people chiming in with their equally anecdotal stories that they saw great benefit from clubs at schools, so clearly OP is objectively wrong, and it should be an open and shut case, but the person wouldn’t change their view. Eventually they awarded a delta on some minor technicality, but I had jumped in to the convo after the delta had been awarded, and they were still rigidly holding on to their original view. Which brings me to my next point:\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. It feels like a loophole that often gets exploited so people can soapbox. Again, don’t know what can be done, but it’s annoying nonetheless\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting. Paragraphs exist for a reason, and it’s really annoying when the OP is this MASSIVE wall of text with no paragraph breaks.\n\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting. I know that y’all have no control over it, but in my opinion, downvoting is meant to be used to filter out spam and obvious trolls. \n\n\nBut in my experience the Reddit hive mind loves to just pound on the downvote button simply because someone disagrees with them, and once a comment has a couple of negative points, the Reddit hive mind loves to gang up on a slightly downvoted comment and downvote it into oblivion, until it eventually gets hidden. In a place that is supposed to be about open, rational and civil discourse, it’s frankly disrespectful. Again, I know that you have no control over it, but there are some subs that do have sticky messages discouraging downvoting precisely for this reason.\nThose are just some thoughts, and mostly just me venting. I understand that y’all don’t get paid, and I appreciate the work that you do.", ">\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. \n\nReport those for Rule B. A minor technicality delta isn't protection from a Rule B removal. We often do remove posts that try to protect against removal using deltas like this.\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\n\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting.\n\nNo one reads stickies and no matter what we try, Redditors won't use downvotes correctly. We'd disable them entirely if we could, but Reddit won't let us.", ">\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nSure there is, make some rules about formatting and take down posts that don't follow them. Plenty of other subs manage it just fine.", ">\n\nI mean, we do have rules about formatting, but those are 100% objective. Rule A requires 500+ characters, while Rule C requires the title to begin with “CMV:”. I’m not sure how to make such a rule for paragraphs that either could be automated or wouldn’t be time-consuming to moderate. What is your suggestion?", ">\n\nI don't personally moderate any subreddits and I am not familiar with the tools available to do so. Perhaps you could reach out to the moderators of other subreddits that do have post formatting requirements to determine what strategies they use to enforce them. \nr/HobbyDrama is fairly strict that your post must be pretty comprehensive, they may be able to offer advice. I'm sure others would have some ideas. \nI would also break views down into 3 categories: philosophical views, preferential views and views regarding objective facts. \nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts and follow some rules so you let shit fester on the front page, making it clear shit posts are acceptable.", ">\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people. It's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. Friction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. Forcing people to decide which of three categories their view falls into and then following a set of rules based on that category feels like bad friction.\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. Opening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.", ">\n\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people.\n\nIt is reasonable to expect people to follow rules to engage in a useful service \n\nIt's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\n\nBut when we don't understand what someone believes or why we can't do that. \n\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. \n\nThis is actually a good thing since you have repeatedly stated you don't have adequate moderation resources. \n\nFriction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. \n\nPeople that are open minded will read the rules and if there post is taken down will follow the instructions to repost it. \n\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. \n\nThen they frankly weren't that open to it in the first place. \n\nOpening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI'd say 40% plus of posts never open up to critique, they are feels over realz garbage. They not only waste time they make other posts worse by making this a place where garbage is accepted. \n\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.\n\nSometimes you need to make sacrifices to actually accomplish that mission rather than be a platform for misinformation. I would actually argue this subreddit damages the world right now." ]
> Oh good, I'm not the only one thinking that. Like they said, we are lucky to get a post or two before noon time EST.	[ "So first off, I realize there’s probably not much that can be done about this, so this mostly me just venting.\nBut theres several common occurrences on this sub that I frequently see that rub me the wrong way:\n\n\nThe personal therapy posts. I’ve always felt that this sub is supposed to be about changing peoples views they have about some aspect of how the world works. But there are a lot of posts where it’s clearly people just looking for some kind of therapy/validation for their personal situation. “Change my view that my life doesn’t suck” or stuff that’s more meant for an r/AmITheAsshole kind of sub.\n\n\nThe broad stroke generalizations based solely on personal anecdotes. I’ve also seen a lot of posts where someone will make an incredibly broad stroke generalization based on their single data point personal anecdote, and all it would reasonably take to change their view and prove them wrong is someone else’s personal anecdote demonstrating contrary to their point. \n\n\nJust the other day I saw some post where someone was basically like “I never got any use out of student clubs, therefore they are of no good to anybody, and should be banned.” There were immediately countless other people chiming in with their equally anecdotal stories that they saw great benefit from clubs at schools, so clearly OP is objectively wrong, and it should be an open and shut case, but the person wouldn’t change their view. Eventually they awarded a delta on some minor technicality, but I had jumped in to the convo after the delta had been awarded, and they were still rigidly holding on to their original view. Which brings me to my next point:\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. It feels like a loophole that often gets exploited so people can soapbox. Again, don’t know what can be done, but it’s annoying nonetheless\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting. Paragraphs exist for a reason, and it’s really annoying when the OP is this MASSIVE wall of text with no paragraph breaks.\n\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting. I know that y’all have no control over it, but in my opinion, downvoting is meant to be used to filter out spam and obvious trolls. \n\n\nBut in my experience the Reddit hive mind loves to just pound on the downvote button simply because someone disagrees with them, and once a comment has a couple of negative points, the Reddit hive mind loves to gang up on a slightly downvoted comment and downvote it into oblivion, until it eventually gets hidden. In a place that is supposed to be about open, rational and civil discourse, it’s frankly disrespectful. Again, I know that you have no control over it, but there are some subs that do have sticky messages discouraging downvoting precisely for this reason.\nThose are just some thoughts, and mostly just me venting. I understand that y’all don’t get paid, and I appreciate the work that you do.", ">\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. \n\nReport those for Rule B. A minor technicality delta isn't protection from a Rule B removal. We often do remove posts that try to protect against removal using deltas like this.\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\n\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting.\n\nNo one reads stickies and no matter what we try, Redditors won't use downvotes correctly. We'd disable them entirely if we could, but Reddit won't let us.", ">\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nSure there is, make some rules about formatting and take down posts that don't follow them. Plenty of other subs manage it just fine.", ">\n\nI mean, we do have rules about formatting, but those are 100% objective. Rule A requires 500+ characters, while Rule C requires the title to begin with “CMV:”. I’m not sure how to make such a rule for paragraphs that either could be automated or wouldn’t be time-consuming to moderate. What is your suggestion?", ">\n\nI don't personally moderate any subreddits and I am not familiar with the tools available to do so. Perhaps you could reach out to the moderators of other subreddits that do have post formatting requirements to determine what strategies they use to enforce them. \nr/HobbyDrama is fairly strict that your post must be pretty comprehensive, they may be able to offer advice. I'm sure others would have some ideas. \nI would also break views down into 3 categories: philosophical views, preferential views and views regarding objective facts. \nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts and follow some rules so you let shit fester on the front page, making it clear shit posts are acceptable.", ">\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people. It's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. Friction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. Forcing people to decide which of three categories their view falls into and then following a set of rules based on that category feels like bad friction.\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. Opening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.", ">\n\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people.\n\nIt is reasonable to expect people to follow rules to engage in a useful service \n\nIt's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\n\nBut when we don't understand what someone believes or why we can't do that. \n\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. \n\nThis is actually a good thing since you have repeatedly stated you don't have adequate moderation resources. \n\nFriction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. \n\nPeople that are open minded will read the rules and if there post is taken down will follow the instructions to repost it. \n\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. \n\nThen they frankly weren't that open to it in the first place. \n\nOpening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI'd say 40% plus of posts never open up to critique, they are feels over realz garbage. They not only waste time they make other posts worse by making this a place where garbage is accepted. \n\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.\n\nSometimes you need to make sacrifices to actually accomplish that mission rather than be a platform for misinformation. I would actually argue this subreddit damages the world right now.", ">\n\n\"Fresh Friday\" should start around US east coast morning because the sub is just completely dead each friday until 3pm in central european time.\n(obviously it won't make the sub super active but at least there could be one or two CMV)" ]
> Has there been any thought of a sort of automod post on the most common repeated topics? Or a sticky post/wiki with "common CMV subjects" for people to read through? It gets tiring for the regular visitors here to repeatedly see the same topics posted, when they've been discussed to death and this new post has nothing different about the last one. A sort of "This appears to be a commonly discussed subject, please check out these other similar CMV's where the OP's view was changed." Something to hopefully encourage folks to look at the common arguments and either rethink their own position or realize how their view is different and provide a more interesting/different take on the subject?	[ "So first off, I realize there’s probably not much that can be done about this, so this mostly me just venting.\nBut theres several common occurrences on this sub that I frequently see that rub me the wrong way:\n\n\nThe personal therapy posts. I’ve always felt that this sub is supposed to be about changing peoples views they have about some aspect of how the world works. But there are a lot of posts where it’s clearly people just looking for some kind of therapy/validation for their personal situation. “Change my view that my life doesn’t suck” or stuff that’s more meant for an r/AmITheAsshole kind of sub.\n\n\nThe broad stroke generalizations based solely on personal anecdotes. I’ve also seen a lot of posts where someone will make an incredibly broad stroke generalization based on their single data point personal anecdote, and all it would reasonably take to change their view and prove them wrong is someone else’s personal anecdote demonstrating contrary to their point. \n\n\nJust the other day I saw some post where someone was basically like “I never got any use out of student clubs, therefore they are of no good to anybody, and should be banned.” There were immediately countless other people chiming in with their equally anecdotal stories that they saw great benefit from clubs at schools, so clearly OP is objectively wrong, and it should be an open and shut case, but the person wouldn’t change their view. Eventually they awarded a delta on some minor technicality, but I had jumped in to the convo after the delta had been awarded, and they were still rigidly holding on to their original view. Which brings me to my next point:\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. It feels like a loophole that often gets exploited so people can soapbox. Again, don’t know what can be done, but it’s annoying nonetheless\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting. Paragraphs exist for a reason, and it’s really annoying when the OP is this MASSIVE wall of text with no paragraph breaks.\n\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting. I know that y’all have no control over it, but in my opinion, downvoting is meant to be used to filter out spam and obvious trolls. \n\n\nBut in my experience the Reddit hive mind loves to just pound on the downvote button simply because someone disagrees with them, and once a comment has a couple of negative points, the Reddit hive mind loves to gang up on a slightly downvoted comment and downvote it into oblivion, until it eventually gets hidden. In a place that is supposed to be about open, rational and civil discourse, it’s frankly disrespectful. Again, I know that you have no control over it, but there are some subs that do have sticky messages discouraging downvoting precisely for this reason.\nThose are just some thoughts, and mostly just me venting. I understand that y’all don’t get paid, and I appreciate the work that you do.", ">\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. \n\nReport those for Rule B. A minor technicality delta isn't protection from a Rule B removal. We often do remove posts that try to protect against removal using deltas like this.\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\n\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting.\n\nNo one reads stickies and no matter what we try, Redditors won't use downvotes correctly. We'd disable them entirely if we could, but Reddit won't let us.", ">\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nSure there is, make some rules about formatting and take down posts that don't follow them. Plenty of other subs manage it just fine.", ">\n\nI mean, we do have rules about formatting, but those are 100% objective. Rule A requires 500+ characters, while Rule C requires the title to begin with “CMV:”. I’m not sure how to make such a rule for paragraphs that either could be automated or wouldn’t be time-consuming to moderate. What is your suggestion?", ">\n\nI don't personally moderate any subreddits and I am not familiar with the tools available to do so. Perhaps you could reach out to the moderators of other subreddits that do have post formatting requirements to determine what strategies they use to enforce them. \nr/HobbyDrama is fairly strict that your post must be pretty comprehensive, they may be able to offer advice. I'm sure others would have some ideas. \nI would also break views down into 3 categories: philosophical views, preferential views and views regarding objective facts. \nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts and follow some rules so you let shit fester on the front page, making it clear shit posts are acceptable.", ">\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people. It's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. Friction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. Forcing people to decide which of three categories their view falls into and then following a set of rules based on that category feels like bad friction.\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. Opening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.", ">\n\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people.\n\nIt is reasonable to expect people to follow rules to engage in a useful service \n\nIt's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\n\nBut when we don't understand what someone believes or why we can't do that. \n\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. \n\nThis is actually a good thing since you have repeatedly stated you don't have adequate moderation resources. \n\nFriction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. \n\nPeople that are open minded will read the rules and if there post is taken down will follow the instructions to repost it. \n\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. \n\nThen they frankly weren't that open to it in the first place. \n\nOpening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI'd say 40% plus of posts never open up to critique, they are feels over realz garbage. They not only waste time they make other posts worse by making this a place where garbage is accepted. \n\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.\n\nSometimes you need to make sacrifices to actually accomplish that mission rather than be a platform for misinformation. I would actually argue this subreddit damages the world right now.", ">\n\n\"Fresh Friday\" should start around US east coast morning because the sub is just completely dead each friday until 3pm in central european time.\n(obviously it won't make the sub super active but at least there could be one or two CMV)", ">\n\nOh good, I'm not the only one thinking that. \nLike they said, we are lucky to get a post or two before noon time EST." ]
> Those are already posted when someone submits a thread on a common topic. We don't remove the thread, as we see CMVs as personal to the OP, but we do let them know that other threads exist touching on the subject.	[ "So first off, I realize there’s probably not much that can be done about this, so this mostly me just venting.\nBut theres several common occurrences on this sub that I frequently see that rub me the wrong way:\n\n\nThe personal therapy posts. I’ve always felt that this sub is supposed to be about changing peoples views they have about some aspect of how the world works. But there are a lot of posts where it’s clearly people just looking for some kind of therapy/validation for their personal situation. “Change my view that my life doesn’t suck” or stuff that’s more meant for an r/AmITheAsshole kind of sub.\n\n\nThe broad stroke generalizations based solely on personal anecdotes. I’ve also seen a lot of posts where someone will make an incredibly broad stroke generalization based on their single data point personal anecdote, and all it would reasonably take to change their view and prove them wrong is someone else’s personal anecdote demonstrating contrary to their point. \n\n\nJust the other day I saw some post where someone was basically like “I never got any use out of student clubs, therefore they are of no good to anybody, and should be banned.” There were immediately countless other people chiming in with their equally anecdotal stories that they saw great benefit from clubs at schools, so clearly OP is objectively wrong, and it should be an open and shut case, but the person wouldn’t change their view. Eventually they awarded a delta on some minor technicality, but I had jumped in to the convo after the delta had been awarded, and they were still rigidly holding on to their original view. Which brings me to my next point:\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. It feels like a loophole that often gets exploited so people can soapbox. Again, don’t know what can be done, but it’s annoying nonetheless\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting. Paragraphs exist for a reason, and it’s really annoying when the OP is this MASSIVE wall of text with no paragraph breaks.\n\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting. I know that y’all have no control over it, but in my opinion, downvoting is meant to be used to filter out spam and obvious trolls. \n\n\nBut in my experience the Reddit hive mind loves to just pound on the downvote button simply because someone disagrees with them, and once a comment has a couple of negative points, the Reddit hive mind loves to gang up on a slightly downvoted comment and downvote it into oblivion, until it eventually gets hidden. In a place that is supposed to be about open, rational and civil discourse, it’s frankly disrespectful. Again, I know that you have no control over it, but there are some subs that do have sticky messages discouraging downvoting precisely for this reason.\nThose are just some thoughts, and mostly just me venting. I understand that y’all don’t get paid, and I appreciate the work that you do.", ">\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. \n\nReport those for Rule B. A minor technicality delta isn't protection from a Rule B removal. We often do remove posts that try to protect against removal using deltas like this.\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\n\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting.\n\nNo one reads stickies and no matter what we try, Redditors won't use downvotes correctly. We'd disable them entirely if we could, but Reddit won't let us.", ">\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nSure there is, make some rules about formatting and take down posts that don't follow them. Plenty of other subs manage it just fine.", ">\n\nI mean, we do have rules about formatting, but those are 100% objective. Rule A requires 500+ characters, while Rule C requires the title to begin with “CMV:”. I’m not sure how to make such a rule for paragraphs that either could be automated or wouldn’t be time-consuming to moderate. What is your suggestion?", ">\n\nI don't personally moderate any subreddits and I am not familiar with the tools available to do so. Perhaps you could reach out to the moderators of other subreddits that do have post formatting requirements to determine what strategies they use to enforce them. \nr/HobbyDrama is fairly strict that your post must be pretty comprehensive, they may be able to offer advice. I'm sure others would have some ideas. \nI would also break views down into 3 categories: philosophical views, preferential views and views regarding objective facts. \nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts and follow some rules so you let shit fester on the front page, making it clear shit posts are acceptable.", ">\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people. It's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. Friction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. Forcing people to decide which of three categories their view falls into and then following a set of rules based on that category feels like bad friction.\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. Opening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.", ">\n\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people.\n\nIt is reasonable to expect people to follow rules to engage in a useful service \n\nIt's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\n\nBut when we don't understand what someone believes or why we can't do that. \n\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. \n\nThis is actually a good thing since you have repeatedly stated you don't have adequate moderation resources. \n\nFriction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. \n\nPeople that are open minded will read the rules and if there post is taken down will follow the instructions to repost it. \n\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. \n\nThen they frankly weren't that open to it in the first place. \n\nOpening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI'd say 40% plus of posts never open up to critique, they are feels over realz garbage. They not only waste time they make other posts worse by making this a place where garbage is accepted. \n\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.\n\nSometimes you need to make sacrifices to actually accomplish that mission rather than be a platform for misinformation. I would actually argue this subreddit damages the world right now.", ">\n\n\"Fresh Friday\" should start around US east coast morning because the sub is just completely dead each friday until 3pm in central european time.\n(obviously it won't make the sub super active but at least there could be one or two CMV)", ">\n\nOh good, I'm not the only one thinking that. \nLike they said, we are lucky to get a post or two before noon time EST.", ">\n\nHas there been any thought of a sort of automod post on the most common repeated topics? Or a sticky post/wiki with \"common CMV subjects\" for people to read through?\nIt gets tiring for the regular visitors here to repeatedly see the same topics posted, when they've been discussed to death and this new post has nothing different about the last one.\nA sort of \"This appears to be a commonly discussed subject, please check out these other similar CMV's where the OP's view was changed.\" Something to hopefully encourage folks to look at the common arguments and either rethink their own position or realize how their view is different and provide a more interesting/different take on the subject?" ]
> Although this has been brought up before, block abuse is still a problem. People, especially OP, using blocks in response to good faith participation (usually in response to an argument they can't respond to or pressing a question they can't answer) is not healthy for this subreddit.	[ "So first off, I realize there’s probably not much that can be done about this, so this mostly me just venting.\nBut theres several common occurrences on this sub that I frequently see that rub me the wrong way:\n\n\nThe personal therapy posts. I’ve always felt that this sub is supposed to be about changing peoples views they have about some aspect of how the world works. But there are a lot of posts where it’s clearly people just looking for some kind of therapy/validation for their personal situation. “Change my view that my life doesn’t suck” or stuff that’s more meant for an r/AmITheAsshole kind of sub.\n\n\nThe broad stroke generalizations based solely on personal anecdotes. I’ve also seen a lot of posts where someone will make an incredibly broad stroke generalization based on their single data point personal anecdote, and all it would reasonably take to change their view and prove them wrong is someone else’s personal anecdote demonstrating contrary to their point. \n\n\nJust the other day I saw some post where someone was basically like “I never got any use out of student clubs, therefore they are of no good to anybody, and should be banned.” There were immediately countless other people chiming in with their equally anecdotal stories that they saw great benefit from clubs at schools, so clearly OP is objectively wrong, and it should be an open and shut case, but the person wouldn’t change their view. Eventually they awarded a delta on some minor technicality, but I had jumped in to the convo after the delta had been awarded, and they were still rigidly holding on to their original view. Which brings me to my next point:\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. It feels like a loophole that often gets exploited so people can soapbox. Again, don’t know what can be done, but it’s annoying nonetheless\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting. Paragraphs exist for a reason, and it’s really annoying when the OP is this MASSIVE wall of text with no paragraph breaks.\n\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting. I know that y’all have no control over it, but in my opinion, downvoting is meant to be used to filter out spam and obvious trolls. \n\n\nBut in my experience the Reddit hive mind loves to just pound on the downvote button simply because someone disagrees with them, and once a comment has a couple of negative points, the Reddit hive mind loves to gang up on a slightly downvoted comment and downvote it into oblivion, until it eventually gets hidden. In a place that is supposed to be about open, rational and civil discourse, it’s frankly disrespectful. Again, I know that you have no control over it, but there are some subs that do have sticky messages discouraging downvoting precisely for this reason.\nThose are just some thoughts, and mostly just me venting. I understand that y’all don’t get paid, and I appreciate the work that you do.", ">\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. \n\nReport those for Rule B. A minor technicality delta isn't protection from a Rule B removal. We often do remove posts that try to protect against removal using deltas like this.\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\n\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting.\n\nNo one reads stickies and no matter what we try, Redditors won't use downvotes correctly. We'd disable them entirely if we could, but Reddit won't let us.", ">\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nSure there is, make some rules about formatting and take down posts that don't follow them. Plenty of other subs manage it just fine.", ">\n\nI mean, we do have rules about formatting, but those are 100% objective. Rule A requires 500+ characters, while Rule C requires the title to begin with “CMV:”. I’m not sure how to make such a rule for paragraphs that either could be automated or wouldn’t be time-consuming to moderate. What is your suggestion?", ">\n\nI don't personally moderate any subreddits and I am not familiar with the tools available to do so. Perhaps you could reach out to the moderators of other subreddits that do have post formatting requirements to determine what strategies they use to enforce them. \nr/HobbyDrama is fairly strict that your post must be pretty comprehensive, they may be able to offer advice. I'm sure others would have some ideas. \nI would also break views down into 3 categories: philosophical views, preferential views and views regarding objective facts. \nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts and follow some rules so you let shit fester on the front page, making it clear shit posts are acceptable.", ">\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people. It's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. Friction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. Forcing people to decide which of three categories their view falls into and then following a set of rules based on that category feels like bad friction.\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. Opening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.", ">\n\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people.\n\nIt is reasonable to expect people to follow rules to engage in a useful service \n\nIt's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\n\nBut when we don't understand what someone believes or why we can't do that. \n\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. \n\nThis is actually a good thing since you have repeatedly stated you don't have adequate moderation resources. \n\nFriction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. \n\nPeople that are open minded will read the rules and if there post is taken down will follow the instructions to repost it. \n\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. \n\nThen they frankly weren't that open to it in the first place. \n\nOpening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI'd say 40% plus of posts never open up to critique, they are feels over realz garbage. They not only waste time they make other posts worse by making this a place where garbage is accepted. \n\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.\n\nSometimes you need to make sacrifices to actually accomplish that mission rather than be a platform for misinformation. I would actually argue this subreddit damages the world right now.", ">\n\n\"Fresh Friday\" should start around US east coast morning because the sub is just completely dead each friday until 3pm in central european time.\n(obviously it won't make the sub super active but at least there could be one or two CMV)", ">\n\nOh good, I'm not the only one thinking that. \nLike they said, we are lucky to get a post or two before noon time EST.", ">\n\nHas there been any thought of a sort of automod post on the most common repeated topics? Or a sticky post/wiki with \"common CMV subjects\" for people to read through?\nIt gets tiring for the regular visitors here to repeatedly see the same topics posted, when they've been discussed to death and this new post has nothing different about the last one.\nA sort of \"This appears to be a commonly discussed subject, please check out these other similar CMV's where the OP's view was changed.\" Something to hopefully encourage folks to look at the common arguments and either rethink their own position or realize how their view is different and provide a more interesting/different take on the subject?", ">\n\nThose are already posted when someone submits a thread on a common topic. \nWe don't remove the thread, as we see CMVs as personal to the OP, but we do let them know that other threads exist touching on the subject." ]
> We know. There is nothing we can do about it. I've begged the Admins for better tools to address the problem but have gotten no response.	[ "So first off, I realize there’s probably not much that can be done about this, so this mostly me just venting.\nBut theres several common occurrences on this sub that I frequently see that rub me the wrong way:\n\n\nThe personal therapy posts. I’ve always felt that this sub is supposed to be about changing peoples views they have about some aspect of how the world works. But there are a lot of posts where it’s clearly people just looking for some kind of therapy/validation for their personal situation. “Change my view that my life doesn’t suck” or stuff that’s more meant for an r/AmITheAsshole kind of sub.\n\n\nThe broad stroke generalizations based solely on personal anecdotes. I’ve also seen a lot of posts where someone will make an incredibly broad stroke generalization based on their single data point personal anecdote, and all it would reasonably take to change their view and prove them wrong is someone else’s personal anecdote demonstrating contrary to their point. \n\n\nJust the other day I saw some post where someone was basically like “I never got any use out of student clubs, therefore they are of no good to anybody, and should be banned.” There were immediately countless other people chiming in with their equally anecdotal stories that they saw great benefit from clubs at schools, so clearly OP is objectively wrong, and it should be an open and shut case, but the person wouldn’t change their view. Eventually they awarded a delta on some minor technicality, but I had jumped in to the convo after the delta had been awarded, and they were still rigidly holding on to their original view. Which brings me to my next point:\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. It feels like a loophole that often gets exploited so people can soapbox. Again, don’t know what can be done, but it’s annoying nonetheless\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting. Paragraphs exist for a reason, and it’s really annoying when the OP is this MASSIVE wall of text with no paragraph breaks.\n\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting. I know that y’all have no control over it, but in my opinion, downvoting is meant to be used to filter out spam and obvious trolls. \n\n\nBut in my experience the Reddit hive mind loves to just pound on the downvote button simply because someone disagrees with them, and once a comment has a couple of negative points, the Reddit hive mind loves to gang up on a slightly downvoted comment and downvote it into oblivion, until it eventually gets hidden. In a place that is supposed to be about open, rational and civil discourse, it’s frankly disrespectful. Again, I know that you have no control over it, but there are some subs that do have sticky messages discouraging downvoting precisely for this reason.\nThose are just some thoughts, and mostly just me venting. I understand that y’all don’t get paid, and I appreciate the work that you do.", ">\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. \n\nReport those for Rule B. A minor technicality delta isn't protection from a Rule B removal. We often do remove posts that try to protect against removal using deltas like this.\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\n\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting.\n\nNo one reads stickies and no matter what we try, Redditors won't use downvotes correctly. We'd disable them entirely if we could, but Reddit won't let us.", ">\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nSure there is, make some rules about formatting and take down posts that don't follow them. Plenty of other subs manage it just fine.", ">\n\nI mean, we do have rules about formatting, but those are 100% objective. Rule A requires 500+ characters, while Rule C requires the title to begin with “CMV:”. I’m not sure how to make such a rule for paragraphs that either could be automated or wouldn’t be time-consuming to moderate. What is your suggestion?", ">\n\nI don't personally moderate any subreddits and I am not familiar with the tools available to do so. Perhaps you could reach out to the moderators of other subreddits that do have post formatting requirements to determine what strategies they use to enforce them. \nr/HobbyDrama is fairly strict that your post must be pretty comprehensive, they may be able to offer advice. I'm sure others would have some ideas. \nI would also break views down into 3 categories: philosophical views, preferential views and views regarding objective facts. \nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts and follow some rules so you let shit fester on the front page, making it clear shit posts are acceptable.", ">\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people. It's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. Friction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. Forcing people to decide which of three categories their view falls into and then following a set of rules based on that category feels like bad friction.\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. Opening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.", ">\n\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people.\n\nIt is reasonable to expect people to follow rules to engage in a useful service \n\nIt's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\n\nBut when we don't understand what someone believes or why we can't do that. \n\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. \n\nThis is actually a good thing since you have repeatedly stated you don't have adequate moderation resources. \n\nFriction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. \n\nPeople that are open minded will read the rules and if there post is taken down will follow the instructions to repost it. \n\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. \n\nThen they frankly weren't that open to it in the first place. \n\nOpening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI'd say 40% plus of posts never open up to critique, they are feels over realz garbage. They not only waste time they make other posts worse by making this a place where garbage is accepted. \n\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.\n\nSometimes you need to make sacrifices to actually accomplish that mission rather than be a platform for misinformation. I would actually argue this subreddit damages the world right now.", ">\n\n\"Fresh Friday\" should start around US east coast morning because the sub is just completely dead each friday until 3pm in central european time.\n(obviously it won't make the sub super active but at least there could be one or two CMV)", ">\n\nOh good, I'm not the only one thinking that. \nLike they said, we are lucky to get a post or two before noon time EST.", ">\n\nHas there been any thought of a sort of automod post on the most common repeated topics? Or a sticky post/wiki with \"common CMV subjects\" for people to read through?\nIt gets tiring for the regular visitors here to repeatedly see the same topics posted, when they've been discussed to death and this new post has nothing different about the last one.\nA sort of \"This appears to be a commonly discussed subject, please check out these other similar CMV's where the OP's view was changed.\" Something to hopefully encourage folks to look at the common arguments and either rethink their own position or realize how their view is different and provide a more interesting/different take on the subject?", ">\n\nThose are already posted when someone submits a thread on a common topic. \nWe don't remove the thread, as we see CMVs as personal to the OP, but we do let them know that other threads exist touching on the subject.", ">\n\nAlthough this has been brought up before, block abuse is still a problem. People, especially OP, using blocks in response to good faith participation (usually in response to an argument they can't respond to or pressing a question they can't answer) is not healthy for this subreddit." ]
> Can you do nothing even when there are multiple users reporting they have been blocked and when the blocker is explicit about having blocked people? I didn't think this problem was so bad until a current CMV post when multiple people said they had been blocked by the same user who then (according to the OP) also blocked the OP.	[ "So first off, I realize there’s probably not much that can be done about this, so this mostly me just venting.\nBut theres several common occurrences on this sub that I frequently see that rub me the wrong way:\n\n\nThe personal therapy posts. I’ve always felt that this sub is supposed to be about changing peoples views they have about some aspect of how the world works. But there are a lot of posts where it’s clearly people just looking for some kind of therapy/validation for their personal situation. “Change my view that my life doesn’t suck” or stuff that’s more meant for an r/AmITheAsshole kind of sub.\n\n\nThe broad stroke generalizations based solely on personal anecdotes. I’ve also seen a lot of posts where someone will make an incredibly broad stroke generalization based on their single data point personal anecdote, and all it would reasonably take to change their view and prove them wrong is someone else’s personal anecdote demonstrating contrary to their point. \n\n\nJust the other day I saw some post where someone was basically like “I never got any use out of student clubs, therefore they are of no good to anybody, and should be banned.” There were immediately countless other people chiming in with their equally anecdotal stories that they saw great benefit from clubs at schools, so clearly OP is objectively wrong, and it should be an open and shut case, but the person wouldn’t change their view. Eventually they awarded a delta on some minor technicality, but I had jumped in to the convo after the delta had been awarded, and they were still rigidly holding on to their original view. Which brings me to my next point:\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. It feels like a loophole that often gets exploited so people can soapbox. Again, don’t know what can be done, but it’s annoying nonetheless\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting. Paragraphs exist for a reason, and it’s really annoying when the OP is this MASSIVE wall of text with no paragraph breaks.\n\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting. I know that y’all have no control over it, but in my opinion, downvoting is meant to be used to filter out spam and obvious trolls. \n\n\nBut in my experience the Reddit hive mind loves to just pound on the downvote button simply because someone disagrees with them, and once a comment has a couple of negative points, the Reddit hive mind loves to gang up on a slightly downvoted comment and downvote it into oblivion, until it eventually gets hidden. In a place that is supposed to be about open, rational and civil discourse, it’s frankly disrespectful. Again, I know that you have no control over it, but there are some subs that do have sticky messages discouraging downvoting precisely for this reason.\nThose are just some thoughts, and mostly just me venting. I understand that y’all don’t get paid, and I appreciate the work that you do.", ">\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. \n\nReport those for Rule B. A minor technicality delta isn't protection from a Rule B removal. We often do remove posts that try to protect against removal using deltas like this.\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\n\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting.\n\nNo one reads stickies and no matter what we try, Redditors won't use downvotes correctly. We'd disable them entirely if we could, but Reddit won't let us.", ">\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nSure there is, make some rules about formatting and take down posts that don't follow them. Plenty of other subs manage it just fine.", ">\n\nI mean, we do have rules about formatting, but those are 100% objective. Rule A requires 500+ characters, while Rule C requires the title to begin with “CMV:”. I’m not sure how to make such a rule for paragraphs that either could be automated or wouldn’t be time-consuming to moderate. What is your suggestion?", ">\n\nI don't personally moderate any subreddits and I am not familiar with the tools available to do so. Perhaps you could reach out to the moderators of other subreddits that do have post formatting requirements to determine what strategies they use to enforce them. \nr/HobbyDrama is fairly strict that your post must be pretty comprehensive, they may be able to offer advice. I'm sure others would have some ideas. \nI would also break views down into 3 categories: philosophical views, preferential views and views regarding objective facts. \nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts and follow some rules so you let shit fester on the front page, making it clear shit posts are acceptable.", ">\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people. It's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. Friction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. Forcing people to decide which of three categories their view falls into and then following a set of rules based on that category feels like bad friction.\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. Opening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.", ">\n\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people.\n\nIt is reasonable to expect people to follow rules to engage in a useful service \n\nIt's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\n\nBut when we don't understand what someone believes or why we can't do that. \n\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. \n\nThis is actually a good thing since you have repeatedly stated you don't have adequate moderation resources. \n\nFriction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. \n\nPeople that are open minded will read the rules and if there post is taken down will follow the instructions to repost it. \n\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. \n\nThen they frankly weren't that open to it in the first place. \n\nOpening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI'd say 40% plus of posts never open up to critique, they are feels over realz garbage. They not only waste time they make other posts worse by making this a place where garbage is accepted. \n\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.\n\nSometimes you need to make sacrifices to actually accomplish that mission rather than be a platform for misinformation. I would actually argue this subreddit damages the world right now.", ">\n\n\"Fresh Friday\" should start around US east coast morning because the sub is just completely dead each friday until 3pm in central european time.\n(obviously it won't make the sub super active but at least there could be one or two CMV)", ">\n\nOh good, I'm not the only one thinking that. \nLike they said, we are lucky to get a post or two before noon time EST.", ">\n\nHas there been any thought of a sort of automod post on the most common repeated topics? Or a sticky post/wiki with \"common CMV subjects\" for people to read through?\nIt gets tiring for the regular visitors here to repeatedly see the same topics posted, when they've been discussed to death and this new post has nothing different about the last one.\nA sort of \"This appears to be a commonly discussed subject, please check out these other similar CMV's where the OP's view was changed.\" Something to hopefully encourage folks to look at the common arguments and either rethink their own position or realize how their view is different and provide a more interesting/different take on the subject?", ">\n\nThose are already posted when someone submits a thread on a common topic. \nWe don't remove the thread, as we see CMVs as personal to the OP, but we do let them know that other threads exist touching on the subject.", ">\n\nAlthough this has been brought up before, block abuse is still a problem. People, especially OP, using blocks in response to good faith participation (usually in response to an argument they can't respond to or pressing a question they can't answer) is not healthy for this subreddit.", ">\n\nWe know. There is nothing we can do about it. I've begged the Admins for better tools to address the problem but have gotten no response." ]
> We have a long standing policy that we don't act on things we can't personally verify as true. This isn't to say that we don't trust you specifically, but people do lie; I've had people submit photoshopped screencaps to try and get people banned (the idiot photoshopped me without realizing I was a mod, so that didn't work out great for them). If we can't see it with our own eyes, we don't take action. If we start taking a user's word for something, it becomes far too easy to weaponize and exploit.	[ "So first off, I realize there’s probably not much that can be done about this, so this mostly me just venting.\nBut theres several common occurrences on this sub that I frequently see that rub me the wrong way:\n\n\nThe personal therapy posts. I’ve always felt that this sub is supposed to be about changing peoples views they have about some aspect of how the world works. But there are a lot of posts where it’s clearly people just looking for some kind of therapy/validation for their personal situation. “Change my view that my life doesn’t suck” or stuff that’s more meant for an r/AmITheAsshole kind of sub.\n\n\nThe broad stroke generalizations based solely on personal anecdotes. I’ve also seen a lot of posts where someone will make an incredibly broad stroke generalization based on their single data point personal anecdote, and all it would reasonably take to change their view and prove them wrong is someone else’s personal anecdote demonstrating contrary to their point. \n\n\nJust the other day I saw some post where someone was basically like “I never got any use out of student clubs, therefore they are of no good to anybody, and should be banned.” There were immediately countless other people chiming in with their equally anecdotal stories that they saw great benefit from clubs at schools, so clearly OP is objectively wrong, and it should be an open and shut case, but the person wouldn’t change their view. Eventually they awarded a delta on some minor technicality, but I had jumped in to the convo after the delta had been awarded, and they were still rigidly holding on to their original view. Which brings me to my next point:\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. It feels like a loophole that often gets exploited so people can soapbox. Again, don’t know what can be done, but it’s annoying nonetheless\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting. Paragraphs exist for a reason, and it’s really annoying when the OP is this MASSIVE wall of text with no paragraph breaks.\n\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting. I know that y’all have no control over it, but in my opinion, downvoting is meant to be used to filter out spam and obvious trolls. \n\n\nBut in my experience the Reddit hive mind loves to just pound on the downvote button simply because someone disagrees with them, and once a comment has a couple of negative points, the Reddit hive mind loves to gang up on a slightly downvoted comment and downvote it into oblivion, until it eventually gets hidden. In a place that is supposed to be about open, rational and civil discourse, it’s frankly disrespectful. Again, I know that you have no control over it, but there are some subs that do have sticky messages discouraging downvoting precisely for this reason.\nThose are just some thoughts, and mostly just me venting. I understand that y’all don’t get paid, and I appreciate the work that you do.", ">\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. \n\nReport those for Rule B. A minor technicality delta isn't protection from a Rule B removal. We often do remove posts that try to protect against removal using deltas like this.\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\n\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting.\n\nNo one reads stickies and no matter what we try, Redditors won't use downvotes correctly. We'd disable them entirely if we could, but Reddit won't let us.", ">\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nSure there is, make some rules about formatting and take down posts that don't follow them. Plenty of other subs manage it just fine.", ">\n\nI mean, we do have rules about formatting, but those are 100% objective. Rule A requires 500+ characters, while Rule C requires the title to begin with “CMV:”. I’m not sure how to make such a rule for paragraphs that either could be automated or wouldn’t be time-consuming to moderate. What is your suggestion?", ">\n\nI don't personally moderate any subreddits and I am not familiar with the tools available to do so. Perhaps you could reach out to the moderators of other subreddits that do have post formatting requirements to determine what strategies they use to enforce them. \nr/HobbyDrama is fairly strict that your post must be pretty comprehensive, they may be able to offer advice. I'm sure others would have some ideas. \nI would also break views down into 3 categories: philosophical views, preferential views and views regarding objective facts. \nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts and follow some rules so you let shit fester on the front page, making it clear shit posts are acceptable.", ">\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people. It's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. Friction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. Forcing people to decide which of three categories their view falls into and then following a set of rules based on that category feels like bad friction.\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. Opening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.", ">\n\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people.\n\nIt is reasonable to expect people to follow rules to engage in a useful service \n\nIt's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\n\nBut when we don't understand what someone believes or why we can't do that. \n\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. \n\nThis is actually a good thing since you have repeatedly stated you don't have adequate moderation resources. \n\nFriction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. \n\nPeople that are open minded will read the rules and if there post is taken down will follow the instructions to repost it. \n\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. \n\nThen they frankly weren't that open to it in the first place. \n\nOpening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI'd say 40% plus of posts never open up to critique, they are feels over realz garbage. They not only waste time they make other posts worse by making this a place where garbage is accepted. \n\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.\n\nSometimes you need to make sacrifices to actually accomplish that mission rather than be a platform for misinformation. I would actually argue this subreddit damages the world right now.", ">\n\n\"Fresh Friday\" should start around US east coast morning because the sub is just completely dead each friday until 3pm in central european time.\n(obviously it won't make the sub super active but at least there could be one or two CMV)", ">\n\nOh good, I'm not the only one thinking that. \nLike they said, we are lucky to get a post or two before noon time EST.", ">\n\nHas there been any thought of a sort of automod post on the most common repeated topics? Or a sticky post/wiki with \"common CMV subjects\" for people to read through?\nIt gets tiring for the regular visitors here to repeatedly see the same topics posted, when they've been discussed to death and this new post has nothing different about the last one.\nA sort of \"This appears to be a commonly discussed subject, please check out these other similar CMV's where the OP's view was changed.\" Something to hopefully encourage folks to look at the common arguments and either rethink their own position or realize how their view is different and provide a more interesting/different take on the subject?", ">\n\nThose are already posted when someone submits a thread on a common topic. \nWe don't remove the thread, as we see CMVs as personal to the OP, but we do let them know that other threads exist touching on the subject.", ">\n\nAlthough this has been brought up before, block abuse is still a problem. People, especially OP, using blocks in response to good faith participation (usually in response to an argument they can't respond to or pressing a question they can't answer) is not healthy for this subreddit.", ">\n\nWe know. There is nothing we can do about it. I've begged the Admins for better tools to address the problem but have gotten no response.", ">\n\nCan you do nothing even when there are multiple users reporting they have been blocked and when the blocker is explicit about having blocked people? I didn't think this problem was so bad until a current CMV post when multiple people said they had been blocked by the same user who then (according to the OP) also blocked the OP." ]
> If a user is saying they have blocked people in their own public comments, does this not qualify as something you can personally verify as true?	[ "So first off, I realize there’s probably not much that can be done about this, so this mostly me just venting.\nBut theres several common occurrences on this sub that I frequently see that rub me the wrong way:\n\n\nThe personal therapy posts. I’ve always felt that this sub is supposed to be about changing peoples views they have about some aspect of how the world works. But there are a lot of posts where it’s clearly people just looking for some kind of therapy/validation for their personal situation. “Change my view that my life doesn’t suck” or stuff that’s more meant for an r/AmITheAsshole kind of sub.\n\n\nThe broad stroke generalizations based solely on personal anecdotes. I’ve also seen a lot of posts where someone will make an incredibly broad stroke generalization based on their single data point personal anecdote, and all it would reasonably take to change their view and prove them wrong is someone else’s personal anecdote demonstrating contrary to their point. \n\n\nJust the other day I saw some post where someone was basically like “I never got any use out of student clubs, therefore they are of no good to anybody, and should be banned.” There were immediately countless other people chiming in with their equally anecdotal stories that they saw great benefit from clubs at schools, so clearly OP is objectively wrong, and it should be an open and shut case, but the person wouldn’t change their view. Eventually they awarded a delta on some minor technicality, but I had jumped in to the convo after the delta had been awarded, and they were still rigidly holding on to their original view. Which brings me to my next point:\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. It feels like a loophole that often gets exploited so people can soapbox. Again, don’t know what can be done, but it’s annoying nonetheless\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting. Paragraphs exist for a reason, and it’s really annoying when the OP is this MASSIVE wall of text with no paragraph breaks.\n\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting. I know that y’all have no control over it, but in my opinion, downvoting is meant to be used to filter out spam and obvious trolls. \n\n\nBut in my experience the Reddit hive mind loves to just pound on the downvote button simply because someone disagrees with them, and once a comment has a couple of negative points, the Reddit hive mind loves to gang up on a slightly downvoted comment and downvote it into oblivion, until it eventually gets hidden. In a place that is supposed to be about open, rational and civil discourse, it’s frankly disrespectful. Again, I know that you have no control over it, but there are some subs that do have sticky messages discouraging downvoting precisely for this reason.\nThose are just some thoughts, and mostly just me venting. I understand that y’all don’t get paid, and I appreciate the work that you do.", ">\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. \n\nReport those for Rule B. A minor technicality delta isn't protection from a Rule B removal. We often do remove posts that try to protect against removal using deltas like this.\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\n\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting.\n\nNo one reads stickies and no matter what we try, Redditors won't use downvotes correctly. We'd disable them entirely if we could, but Reddit won't let us.", ">\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nSure there is, make some rules about formatting and take down posts that don't follow them. Plenty of other subs manage it just fine.", ">\n\nI mean, we do have rules about formatting, but those are 100% objective. Rule A requires 500+ characters, while Rule C requires the title to begin with “CMV:”. I’m not sure how to make such a rule for paragraphs that either could be automated or wouldn’t be time-consuming to moderate. What is your suggestion?", ">\n\nI don't personally moderate any subreddits and I am not familiar with the tools available to do so. Perhaps you could reach out to the moderators of other subreddits that do have post formatting requirements to determine what strategies they use to enforce them. \nr/HobbyDrama is fairly strict that your post must be pretty comprehensive, they may be able to offer advice. I'm sure others would have some ideas. \nI would also break views down into 3 categories: philosophical views, preferential views and views regarding objective facts. \nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts and follow some rules so you let shit fester on the front page, making it clear shit posts are acceptable.", ">\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people. It's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. Friction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. Forcing people to decide which of three categories their view falls into and then following a set of rules based on that category feels like bad friction.\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. Opening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.", ">\n\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people.\n\nIt is reasonable to expect people to follow rules to engage in a useful service \n\nIt's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\n\nBut when we don't understand what someone believes or why we can't do that. \n\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. \n\nThis is actually a good thing since you have repeatedly stated you don't have adequate moderation resources. \n\nFriction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. \n\nPeople that are open minded will read the rules and if there post is taken down will follow the instructions to repost it. \n\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. \n\nThen they frankly weren't that open to it in the first place. \n\nOpening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI'd say 40% plus of posts never open up to critique, they are feels over realz garbage. They not only waste time they make other posts worse by making this a place where garbage is accepted. \n\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.\n\nSometimes you need to make sacrifices to actually accomplish that mission rather than be a platform for misinformation. I would actually argue this subreddit damages the world right now.", ">\n\n\"Fresh Friday\" should start around US east coast morning because the sub is just completely dead each friday until 3pm in central european time.\n(obviously it won't make the sub super active but at least there could be one or two CMV)", ">\n\nOh good, I'm not the only one thinking that. \nLike they said, we are lucky to get a post or two before noon time EST.", ">\n\nHas there been any thought of a sort of automod post on the most common repeated topics? Or a sticky post/wiki with \"common CMV subjects\" for people to read through?\nIt gets tiring for the regular visitors here to repeatedly see the same topics posted, when they've been discussed to death and this new post has nothing different about the last one.\nA sort of \"This appears to be a commonly discussed subject, please check out these other similar CMV's where the OP's view was changed.\" Something to hopefully encourage folks to look at the common arguments and either rethink their own position or realize how their view is different and provide a more interesting/different take on the subject?", ">\n\nThose are already posted when someone submits a thread on a common topic. \nWe don't remove the thread, as we see CMVs as personal to the OP, but we do let them know that other threads exist touching on the subject.", ">\n\nAlthough this has been brought up before, block abuse is still a problem. People, especially OP, using blocks in response to good faith participation (usually in response to an argument they can't respond to or pressing a question they can't answer) is not healthy for this subreddit.", ">\n\nWe know. There is nothing we can do about it. I've begged the Admins for better tools to address the problem but have gotten no response.", ">\n\nCan you do nothing even when there are multiple users reporting they have been blocked and when the blocker is explicit about having blocked people? I didn't think this problem was so bad until a current CMV post when multiple people said they had been blocked by the same user who then (according to the OP) also blocked the OP.", ">\n\nWe have a long standing policy that we don't act on things we can't personally verify as true. This isn't to say that we don't trust you specifically, but people do lie; I've had people submit photoshopped screencaps to try and get people banned (the idiot photoshopped me without realizing I was a mod, so that didn't work out great for them). If we can't see it with our own eyes, we don't take action.\nIf we start taking a user's word for something, it becomes far too easy to weaponize and exploit." ]
> If the user themselves says that they blocked another user, then yes, we will take that into account. We remove comments like that for Rule 3.	[ "So first off, I realize there’s probably not much that can be done about this, so this mostly me just venting.\nBut theres several common occurrences on this sub that I frequently see that rub me the wrong way:\n\n\nThe personal therapy posts. I’ve always felt that this sub is supposed to be about changing peoples views they have about some aspect of how the world works. But there are a lot of posts where it’s clearly people just looking for some kind of therapy/validation for their personal situation. “Change my view that my life doesn’t suck” or stuff that’s more meant for an r/AmITheAsshole kind of sub.\n\n\nThe broad stroke generalizations based solely on personal anecdotes. I’ve also seen a lot of posts where someone will make an incredibly broad stroke generalization based on their single data point personal anecdote, and all it would reasonably take to change their view and prove them wrong is someone else’s personal anecdote demonstrating contrary to their point. \n\n\nJust the other day I saw some post where someone was basically like “I never got any use out of student clubs, therefore they are of no good to anybody, and should be banned.” There were immediately countless other people chiming in with their equally anecdotal stories that they saw great benefit from clubs at schools, so clearly OP is objectively wrong, and it should be an open and shut case, but the person wouldn’t change their view. Eventually they awarded a delta on some minor technicality, but I had jumped in to the convo after the delta had been awarded, and they were still rigidly holding on to their original view. Which brings me to my next point:\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. It feels like a loophole that often gets exploited so people can soapbox. Again, don’t know what can be done, but it’s annoying nonetheless\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting. Paragraphs exist for a reason, and it’s really annoying when the OP is this MASSIVE wall of text with no paragraph breaks.\n\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting. I know that y’all have no control over it, but in my opinion, downvoting is meant to be used to filter out spam and obvious trolls. \n\n\nBut in my experience the Reddit hive mind loves to just pound on the downvote button simply because someone disagrees with them, and once a comment has a couple of negative points, the Reddit hive mind loves to gang up on a slightly downvoted comment and downvote it into oblivion, until it eventually gets hidden. In a place that is supposed to be about open, rational and civil discourse, it’s frankly disrespectful. Again, I know that you have no control over it, but there are some subs that do have sticky messages discouraging downvoting precisely for this reason.\nThose are just some thoughts, and mostly just me venting. I understand that y’all don’t get paid, and I appreciate the work that you do.", ">\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. \n\nReport those for Rule B. A minor technicality delta isn't protection from a Rule B removal. We often do remove posts that try to protect against removal using deltas like this.\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\n\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting.\n\nNo one reads stickies and no matter what we try, Redditors won't use downvotes correctly. We'd disable them entirely if we could, but Reddit won't let us.", ">\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nSure there is, make some rules about formatting and take down posts that don't follow them. Plenty of other subs manage it just fine.", ">\n\nI mean, we do have rules about formatting, but those are 100% objective. Rule A requires 500+ characters, while Rule C requires the title to begin with “CMV:”. I’m not sure how to make such a rule for paragraphs that either could be automated or wouldn’t be time-consuming to moderate. What is your suggestion?", ">\n\nI don't personally moderate any subreddits and I am not familiar with the tools available to do so. Perhaps you could reach out to the moderators of other subreddits that do have post formatting requirements to determine what strategies they use to enforce them. \nr/HobbyDrama is fairly strict that your post must be pretty comprehensive, they may be able to offer advice. I'm sure others would have some ideas. \nI would also break views down into 3 categories: philosophical views, preferential views and views regarding objective facts. \nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts and follow some rules so you let shit fester on the front page, making it clear shit posts are acceptable.", ">\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people. It's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. Friction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. Forcing people to decide which of three categories their view falls into and then following a set of rules based on that category feels like bad friction.\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. Opening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.", ">\n\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people.\n\nIt is reasonable to expect people to follow rules to engage in a useful service \n\nIt's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\n\nBut when we don't understand what someone believes or why we can't do that. \n\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. \n\nThis is actually a good thing since you have repeatedly stated you don't have adequate moderation resources. \n\nFriction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. \n\nPeople that are open minded will read the rules and if there post is taken down will follow the instructions to repost it. \n\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. \n\nThen they frankly weren't that open to it in the first place. \n\nOpening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI'd say 40% plus of posts never open up to critique, they are feels over realz garbage. They not only waste time they make other posts worse by making this a place where garbage is accepted. \n\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.\n\nSometimes you need to make sacrifices to actually accomplish that mission rather than be a platform for misinformation. I would actually argue this subreddit damages the world right now.", ">\n\n\"Fresh Friday\" should start around US east coast morning because the sub is just completely dead each friday until 3pm in central european time.\n(obviously it won't make the sub super active but at least there could be one or two CMV)", ">\n\nOh good, I'm not the only one thinking that. \nLike they said, we are lucky to get a post or two before noon time EST.", ">\n\nHas there been any thought of a sort of automod post on the most common repeated topics? Or a sticky post/wiki with \"common CMV subjects\" for people to read through?\nIt gets tiring for the regular visitors here to repeatedly see the same topics posted, when they've been discussed to death and this new post has nothing different about the last one.\nA sort of \"This appears to be a commonly discussed subject, please check out these other similar CMV's where the OP's view was changed.\" Something to hopefully encourage folks to look at the common arguments and either rethink their own position or realize how their view is different and provide a more interesting/different take on the subject?", ">\n\nThose are already posted when someone submits a thread on a common topic. \nWe don't remove the thread, as we see CMVs as personal to the OP, but we do let them know that other threads exist touching on the subject.", ">\n\nAlthough this has been brought up before, block abuse is still a problem. People, especially OP, using blocks in response to good faith participation (usually in response to an argument they can't respond to or pressing a question they can't answer) is not healthy for this subreddit.", ">\n\nWe know. There is nothing we can do about it. I've begged the Admins for better tools to address the problem but have gotten no response.", ">\n\nCan you do nothing even when there are multiple users reporting they have been blocked and when the blocker is explicit about having blocked people? I didn't think this problem was so bad until a current CMV post when multiple people said they had been blocked by the same user who then (according to the OP) also blocked the OP.", ">\n\nWe have a long standing policy that we don't act on things we can't personally verify as true. This isn't to say that we don't trust you specifically, but people do lie; I've had people submit photoshopped screencaps to try and get people banned (the idiot photoshopped me without realizing I was a mod, so that didn't work out great for them). If we can't see it with our own eyes, we don't take action.\nIf we start taking a user's word for something, it becomes far too easy to weaponize and exploit.", ">\n\nIf a user is saying they have blocked people in their own public comments, does this not qualify as something you can personally verify as true?" ]
> Okay: I will report the instance I am aware of for a rule 3 violation. Thanks.	[ "So first off, I realize there’s probably not much that can be done about this, so this mostly me just venting.\nBut theres several common occurrences on this sub that I frequently see that rub me the wrong way:\n\n\nThe personal therapy posts. I’ve always felt that this sub is supposed to be about changing peoples views they have about some aspect of how the world works. But there are a lot of posts where it’s clearly people just looking for some kind of therapy/validation for their personal situation. “Change my view that my life doesn’t suck” or stuff that’s more meant for an r/AmITheAsshole kind of sub.\n\n\nThe broad stroke generalizations based solely on personal anecdotes. I’ve also seen a lot of posts where someone will make an incredibly broad stroke generalization based on their single data point personal anecdote, and all it would reasonably take to change their view and prove them wrong is someone else’s personal anecdote demonstrating contrary to their point. \n\n\nJust the other day I saw some post where someone was basically like “I never got any use out of student clubs, therefore they are of no good to anybody, and should be banned.” There were immediately countless other people chiming in with their equally anecdotal stories that they saw great benefit from clubs at schools, so clearly OP is objectively wrong, and it should be an open and shut case, but the person wouldn’t change their view. Eventually they awarded a delta on some minor technicality, but I had jumped in to the convo after the delta had been awarded, and they were still rigidly holding on to their original view. Which brings me to my next point:\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. It feels like a loophole that often gets exploited so people can soapbox. Again, don’t know what can be done, but it’s annoying nonetheless\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting. Paragraphs exist for a reason, and it’s really annoying when the OP is this MASSIVE wall of text with no paragraph breaks.\n\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting. I know that y’all have no control over it, but in my opinion, downvoting is meant to be used to filter out spam and obvious trolls. \n\n\nBut in my experience the Reddit hive mind loves to just pound on the downvote button simply because someone disagrees with them, and once a comment has a couple of negative points, the Reddit hive mind loves to gang up on a slightly downvoted comment and downvote it into oblivion, until it eventually gets hidden. In a place that is supposed to be about open, rational and civil discourse, it’s frankly disrespectful. Again, I know that you have no control over it, but there are some subs that do have sticky messages discouraging downvoting precisely for this reason.\nThose are just some thoughts, and mostly just me venting. I understand that y’all don’t get paid, and I appreciate the work that you do.", ">\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. \n\nReport those for Rule B. A minor technicality delta isn't protection from a Rule B removal. We often do remove posts that try to protect against removal using deltas like this.\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\n\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting.\n\nNo one reads stickies and no matter what we try, Redditors won't use downvotes correctly. We'd disable them entirely if we could, but Reddit won't let us.", ">\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nSure there is, make some rules about formatting and take down posts that don't follow them. Plenty of other subs manage it just fine.", ">\n\nI mean, we do have rules about formatting, but those are 100% objective. Rule A requires 500+ characters, while Rule C requires the title to begin with “CMV:”. I’m not sure how to make such a rule for paragraphs that either could be automated or wouldn’t be time-consuming to moderate. What is your suggestion?", ">\n\nI don't personally moderate any subreddits and I am not familiar with the tools available to do so. Perhaps you could reach out to the moderators of other subreddits that do have post formatting requirements to determine what strategies they use to enforce them. \nr/HobbyDrama is fairly strict that your post must be pretty comprehensive, they may be able to offer advice. I'm sure others would have some ideas. \nI would also break views down into 3 categories: philosophical views, preferential views and views regarding objective facts. \nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts and follow some rules so you let shit fester on the front page, making it clear shit posts are acceptable.", ">\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people. It's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. Friction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. Forcing people to decide which of three categories their view falls into and then following a set of rules based on that category feels like bad friction.\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. Opening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.", ">\n\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people.\n\nIt is reasonable to expect people to follow rules to engage in a useful service \n\nIt's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\n\nBut when we don't understand what someone believes or why we can't do that. \n\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. \n\nThis is actually a good thing since you have repeatedly stated you don't have adequate moderation resources. \n\nFriction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. \n\nPeople that are open minded will read the rules and if there post is taken down will follow the instructions to repost it. \n\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. \n\nThen they frankly weren't that open to it in the first place. \n\nOpening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI'd say 40% plus of posts never open up to critique, they are feels over realz garbage. They not only waste time they make other posts worse by making this a place where garbage is accepted. \n\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.\n\nSometimes you need to make sacrifices to actually accomplish that mission rather than be a platform for misinformation. I would actually argue this subreddit damages the world right now.", ">\n\n\"Fresh Friday\" should start around US east coast morning because the sub is just completely dead each friday until 3pm in central european time.\n(obviously it won't make the sub super active but at least there could be one or two CMV)", ">\n\nOh good, I'm not the only one thinking that. \nLike they said, we are lucky to get a post or two before noon time EST.", ">\n\nHas there been any thought of a sort of automod post on the most common repeated topics? Or a sticky post/wiki with \"common CMV subjects\" for people to read through?\nIt gets tiring for the regular visitors here to repeatedly see the same topics posted, when they've been discussed to death and this new post has nothing different about the last one.\nA sort of \"This appears to be a commonly discussed subject, please check out these other similar CMV's where the OP's view was changed.\" Something to hopefully encourage folks to look at the common arguments and either rethink their own position or realize how their view is different and provide a more interesting/different take on the subject?", ">\n\nThose are already posted when someone submits a thread on a common topic. \nWe don't remove the thread, as we see CMVs as personal to the OP, but we do let them know that other threads exist touching on the subject.", ">\n\nAlthough this has been brought up before, block abuse is still a problem. People, especially OP, using blocks in response to good faith participation (usually in response to an argument they can't respond to or pressing a question they can't answer) is not healthy for this subreddit.", ">\n\nWe know. There is nothing we can do about it. I've begged the Admins for better tools to address the problem but have gotten no response.", ">\n\nCan you do nothing even when there are multiple users reporting they have been blocked and when the blocker is explicit about having blocked people? I didn't think this problem was so bad until a current CMV post when multiple people said they had been blocked by the same user who then (according to the OP) also blocked the OP.", ">\n\nWe have a long standing policy that we don't act on things we can't personally verify as true. This isn't to say that we don't trust you specifically, but people do lie; I've had people submit photoshopped screencaps to try and get people banned (the idiot photoshopped me without realizing I was a mod, so that didn't work out great for them). If we can't see it with our own eyes, we don't take action.\nIf we start taking a user's word for something, it becomes far too easy to weaponize and exploit.", ">\n\nIf a user is saying they have blocked people in their own public comments, does this not qualify as something you can personally verify as true?", ">\n\nIf the user themselves says that they blocked another user, then yes, we will take that into account. We remove comments like that for Rule 3." ]
> I feel like there should be some sort of rule where an OP has to read some basic information about gender-related issues before posting about them, so often there are CMVs about gender topics that could have their view changed by a 20 second google. It would be nice if the OPs posting about gender had at least a basic awareness of what happens. For example, today there was a post about teens transitioning and the OP had no idea puberty blockers even existed	[ "So first off, I realize there’s probably not much that can be done about this, so this mostly me just venting.\nBut theres several common occurrences on this sub that I frequently see that rub me the wrong way:\n\n\nThe personal therapy posts. I’ve always felt that this sub is supposed to be about changing peoples views they have about some aspect of how the world works. But there are a lot of posts where it’s clearly people just looking for some kind of therapy/validation for their personal situation. “Change my view that my life doesn’t suck” or stuff that’s more meant for an r/AmITheAsshole kind of sub.\n\n\nThe broad stroke generalizations based solely on personal anecdotes. I’ve also seen a lot of posts where someone will make an incredibly broad stroke generalization based on their single data point personal anecdote, and all it would reasonably take to change their view and prove them wrong is someone else’s personal anecdote demonstrating contrary to their point. \n\n\nJust the other day I saw some post where someone was basically like “I never got any use out of student clubs, therefore they are of no good to anybody, and should be banned.” There were immediately countless other people chiming in with their equally anecdotal stories that they saw great benefit from clubs at schools, so clearly OP is objectively wrong, and it should be an open and shut case, but the person wouldn’t change their view. Eventually they awarded a delta on some minor technicality, but I had jumped in to the convo after the delta had been awarded, and they were still rigidly holding on to their original view. Which brings me to my next point:\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. It feels like a loophole that often gets exploited so people can soapbox. Again, don’t know what can be done, but it’s annoying nonetheless\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting. Paragraphs exist for a reason, and it’s really annoying when the OP is this MASSIVE wall of text with no paragraph breaks.\n\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting. I know that y’all have no control over it, but in my opinion, downvoting is meant to be used to filter out spam and obvious trolls. \n\n\nBut in my experience the Reddit hive mind loves to just pound on the downvote button simply because someone disagrees with them, and once a comment has a couple of negative points, the Reddit hive mind loves to gang up on a slightly downvoted comment and downvote it into oblivion, until it eventually gets hidden. In a place that is supposed to be about open, rational and civil discourse, it’s frankly disrespectful. Again, I know that you have no control over it, but there are some subs that do have sticky messages discouraging downvoting precisely for this reason.\nThose are just some thoughts, and mostly just me venting. I understand that y’all don’t get paid, and I appreciate the work that you do.", ">\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. \n\nReport those for Rule B. A minor technicality delta isn't protection from a Rule B removal. We often do remove posts that try to protect against removal using deltas like this.\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\n\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting.\n\nNo one reads stickies and no matter what we try, Redditors won't use downvotes correctly. We'd disable them entirely if we could, but Reddit won't let us.", ">\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nSure there is, make some rules about formatting and take down posts that don't follow them. Plenty of other subs manage it just fine.", ">\n\nI mean, we do have rules about formatting, but those are 100% objective. Rule A requires 500+ characters, while Rule C requires the title to begin with “CMV:”. I’m not sure how to make such a rule for paragraphs that either could be automated or wouldn’t be time-consuming to moderate. What is your suggestion?", ">\n\nI don't personally moderate any subreddits and I am not familiar with the tools available to do so. Perhaps you could reach out to the moderators of other subreddits that do have post formatting requirements to determine what strategies they use to enforce them. \nr/HobbyDrama is fairly strict that your post must be pretty comprehensive, they may be able to offer advice. I'm sure others would have some ideas. \nI would also break views down into 3 categories: philosophical views, preferential views and views regarding objective facts. \nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts and follow some rules so you let shit fester on the front page, making it clear shit posts are acceptable.", ">\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people. It's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. Friction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. Forcing people to decide which of three categories their view falls into and then following a set of rules based on that category feels like bad friction.\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. Opening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.", ">\n\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people.\n\nIt is reasonable to expect people to follow rules to engage in a useful service \n\nIt's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\n\nBut when we don't understand what someone believes or why we can't do that. \n\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. \n\nThis is actually a good thing since you have repeatedly stated you don't have adequate moderation resources. \n\nFriction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. \n\nPeople that are open minded will read the rules and if there post is taken down will follow the instructions to repost it. \n\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. \n\nThen they frankly weren't that open to it in the first place. \n\nOpening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI'd say 40% plus of posts never open up to critique, they are feels over realz garbage. They not only waste time they make other posts worse by making this a place where garbage is accepted. \n\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.\n\nSometimes you need to make sacrifices to actually accomplish that mission rather than be a platform for misinformation. I would actually argue this subreddit damages the world right now.", ">\n\n\"Fresh Friday\" should start around US east coast morning because the sub is just completely dead each friday until 3pm in central european time.\n(obviously it won't make the sub super active but at least there could be one or two CMV)", ">\n\nOh good, I'm not the only one thinking that. \nLike they said, we are lucky to get a post or two before noon time EST.", ">\n\nHas there been any thought of a sort of automod post on the most common repeated topics? Or a sticky post/wiki with \"common CMV subjects\" for people to read through?\nIt gets tiring for the regular visitors here to repeatedly see the same topics posted, when they've been discussed to death and this new post has nothing different about the last one.\nA sort of \"This appears to be a commonly discussed subject, please check out these other similar CMV's where the OP's view was changed.\" Something to hopefully encourage folks to look at the common arguments and either rethink their own position or realize how their view is different and provide a more interesting/different take on the subject?", ">\n\nThose are already posted when someone submits a thread on a common topic. \nWe don't remove the thread, as we see CMVs as personal to the OP, but we do let them know that other threads exist touching on the subject.", ">\n\nAlthough this has been brought up before, block abuse is still a problem. People, especially OP, using blocks in response to good faith participation (usually in response to an argument they can't respond to or pressing a question they can't answer) is not healthy for this subreddit.", ">\n\nWe know. There is nothing we can do about it. I've begged the Admins for better tools to address the problem but have gotten no response.", ">\n\nCan you do nothing even when there are multiple users reporting they have been blocked and when the blocker is explicit about having blocked people? I didn't think this problem was so bad until a current CMV post when multiple people said they had been blocked by the same user who then (according to the OP) also blocked the OP.", ">\n\nWe have a long standing policy that we don't act on things we can't personally verify as true. This isn't to say that we don't trust you specifically, but people do lie; I've had people submit photoshopped screencaps to try and get people banned (the idiot photoshopped me without realizing I was a mod, so that didn't work out great for them). If we can't see it with our own eyes, we don't take action.\nIf we start taking a user's word for something, it becomes far too easy to weaponize and exploit.", ">\n\nIf a user is saying they have blocked people in their own public comments, does this not qualify as something you can personally verify as true?", ">\n\nIf the user themselves says that they blocked another user, then yes, we will take that into account. We remove comments like that for Rule 3.", ">\n\nOkay: I will report the instance I am aware of for a rule 3 violation. Thanks." ]
> Not everyone has a rational basis for what they believe. If you can educate them by providing evidence that they didn't know was out there, isn't that a good thing?	[ "So first off, I realize there’s probably not much that can be done about this, so this mostly me just venting.\nBut theres several common occurrences on this sub that I frequently see that rub me the wrong way:\n\n\nThe personal therapy posts. I’ve always felt that this sub is supposed to be about changing peoples views they have about some aspect of how the world works. But there are a lot of posts where it’s clearly people just looking for some kind of therapy/validation for their personal situation. “Change my view that my life doesn’t suck” or stuff that’s more meant for an r/AmITheAsshole kind of sub.\n\n\nThe broad stroke generalizations based solely on personal anecdotes. I’ve also seen a lot of posts where someone will make an incredibly broad stroke generalization based on their single data point personal anecdote, and all it would reasonably take to change their view and prove them wrong is someone else’s personal anecdote demonstrating contrary to their point. \n\n\nJust the other day I saw some post where someone was basically like “I never got any use out of student clubs, therefore they are of no good to anybody, and should be banned.” There were immediately countless other people chiming in with their equally anecdotal stories that they saw great benefit from clubs at schools, so clearly OP is objectively wrong, and it should be an open and shut case, but the person wouldn’t change their view. Eventually they awarded a delta on some minor technicality, but I had jumped in to the convo after the delta had been awarded, and they were still rigidly holding on to their original view. Which brings me to my next point:\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. It feels like a loophole that often gets exploited so people can soapbox. Again, don’t know what can be done, but it’s annoying nonetheless\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting. Paragraphs exist for a reason, and it’s really annoying when the OP is this MASSIVE wall of text with no paragraph breaks.\n\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting. I know that y’all have no control over it, but in my opinion, downvoting is meant to be used to filter out spam and obvious trolls. \n\n\nBut in my experience the Reddit hive mind loves to just pound on the downvote button simply because someone disagrees with them, and once a comment has a couple of negative points, the Reddit hive mind loves to gang up on a slightly downvoted comment and downvote it into oblivion, until it eventually gets hidden. In a place that is supposed to be about open, rational and civil discourse, it’s frankly disrespectful. Again, I know that you have no control over it, but there are some subs that do have sticky messages discouraging downvoting precisely for this reason.\nThose are just some thoughts, and mostly just me venting. I understand that y’all don’t get paid, and I appreciate the work that you do.", ">\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. \n\nReport those for Rule B. A minor technicality delta isn't protection from a Rule B removal. We often do remove posts that try to protect against removal using deltas like this.\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\n\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting.\n\nNo one reads stickies and no matter what we try, Redditors won't use downvotes correctly. We'd disable them entirely if we could, but Reddit won't let us.", ">\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nSure there is, make some rules about formatting and take down posts that don't follow them. Plenty of other subs manage it just fine.", ">\n\nI mean, we do have rules about formatting, but those are 100% objective. Rule A requires 500+ characters, while Rule C requires the title to begin with “CMV:”. I’m not sure how to make such a rule for paragraphs that either could be automated or wouldn’t be time-consuming to moderate. What is your suggestion?", ">\n\nI don't personally moderate any subreddits and I am not familiar with the tools available to do so. Perhaps you could reach out to the moderators of other subreddits that do have post formatting requirements to determine what strategies they use to enforce them. \nr/HobbyDrama is fairly strict that your post must be pretty comprehensive, they may be able to offer advice. I'm sure others would have some ideas. \nI would also break views down into 3 categories: philosophical views, preferential views and views regarding objective facts. \nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts and follow some rules so you let shit fester on the front page, making it clear shit posts are acceptable.", ">\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people. It's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. Friction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. Forcing people to decide which of three categories their view falls into and then following a set of rules based on that category feels like bad friction.\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. Opening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.", ">\n\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people.\n\nIt is reasonable to expect people to follow rules to engage in a useful service \n\nIt's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\n\nBut when we don't understand what someone believes or why we can't do that. \n\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. \n\nThis is actually a good thing since you have repeatedly stated you don't have adequate moderation resources. \n\nFriction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. \n\nPeople that are open minded will read the rules and if there post is taken down will follow the instructions to repost it. \n\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. \n\nThen they frankly weren't that open to it in the first place. \n\nOpening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI'd say 40% plus of posts never open up to critique, they are feels over realz garbage. They not only waste time they make other posts worse by making this a place where garbage is accepted. \n\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.\n\nSometimes you need to make sacrifices to actually accomplish that mission rather than be a platform for misinformation. I would actually argue this subreddit damages the world right now.", ">\n\n\"Fresh Friday\" should start around US east coast morning because the sub is just completely dead each friday until 3pm in central european time.\n(obviously it won't make the sub super active but at least there could be one or two CMV)", ">\n\nOh good, I'm not the only one thinking that. \nLike they said, we are lucky to get a post or two before noon time EST.", ">\n\nHas there been any thought of a sort of automod post on the most common repeated topics? Or a sticky post/wiki with \"common CMV subjects\" for people to read through?\nIt gets tiring for the regular visitors here to repeatedly see the same topics posted, when they've been discussed to death and this new post has nothing different about the last one.\nA sort of \"This appears to be a commonly discussed subject, please check out these other similar CMV's where the OP's view was changed.\" Something to hopefully encourage folks to look at the common arguments and either rethink their own position or realize how their view is different and provide a more interesting/different take on the subject?", ">\n\nThose are already posted when someone submits a thread on a common topic. \nWe don't remove the thread, as we see CMVs as personal to the OP, but we do let them know that other threads exist touching on the subject.", ">\n\nAlthough this has been brought up before, block abuse is still a problem. People, especially OP, using blocks in response to good faith participation (usually in response to an argument they can't respond to or pressing a question they can't answer) is not healthy for this subreddit.", ">\n\nWe know. There is nothing we can do about it. I've begged the Admins for better tools to address the problem but have gotten no response.", ">\n\nCan you do nothing even when there are multiple users reporting they have been blocked and when the blocker is explicit about having blocked people? I didn't think this problem was so bad until a current CMV post when multiple people said they had been blocked by the same user who then (according to the OP) also blocked the OP.", ">\n\nWe have a long standing policy that we don't act on things we can't personally verify as true. This isn't to say that we don't trust you specifically, but people do lie; I've had people submit photoshopped screencaps to try and get people banned (the idiot photoshopped me without realizing I was a mod, so that didn't work out great for them). If we can't see it with our own eyes, we don't take action.\nIf we start taking a user's word for something, it becomes far too easy to weaponize and exploit.", ">\n\nIf a user is saying they have blocked people in their own public comments, does this not qualify as something you can personally verify as true?", ">\n\nIf the user themselves says that they blocked another user, then yes, we will take that into account. We remove comments like that for Rule 3.", ">\n\nOkay: I will report the instance I am aware of for a rule 3 violation. Thanks.", ">\n\nI feel like there should be some sort of rule where an OP has to read some basic information about gender-related issues before posting about them, so often there are CMVs about gender topics that could have their view changed by a 20 second google. It would be nice if the OPs posting about gender had at least a basic awareness of what happens.\nFor example, today there was a post about teens transitioning and the OP had no idea puberty blockers even existed" ]
> out of curiosity, what changes have been put into place because of this bimonthly feedback here if any? I'm also curious what could be done about threads that have hundreds of replies, and an OP who is clearly there and responding, and then the thread just goes away because "You must demonstrate you are open to the view changing". What criteria is ever used for demonstrating this? Perhaps when a thread is hundreds of replies deep, there must clearly be a reason for the removal, not just a 'vibe'... why not at least put that reason in there instead of just removing and saying "Rule 2"?	[ "So first off, I realize there’s probably not much that can be done about this, so this mostly me just venting.\nBut theres several common occurrences on this sub that I frequently see that rub me the wrong way:\n\n\nThe personal therapy posts. I’ve always felt that this sub is supposed to be about changing peoples views they have about some aspect of how the world works. But there are a lot of posts where it’s clearly people just looking for some kind of therapy/validation for their personal situation. “Change my view that my life doesn’t suck” or stuff that’s more meant for an r/AmITheAsshole kind of sub.\n\n\nThe broad stroke generalizations based solely on personal anecdotes. I’ve also seen a lot of posts where someone will make an incredibly broad stroke generalization based on their single data point personal anecdote, and all it would reasonably take to change their view and prove them wrong is someone else’s personal anecdote demonstrating contrary to their point. \n\n\nJust the other day I saw some post where someone was basically like “I never got any use out of student clubs, therefore they are of no good to anybody, and should be banned.” There were immediately countless other people chiming in with their equally anecdotal stories that they saw great benefit from clubs at schools, so clearly OP is objectively wrong, and it should be an open and shut case, but the person wouldn’t change their view. Eventually they awarded a delta on some minor technicality, but I had jumped in to the convo after the delta had been awarded, and they were still rigidly holding on to their original view. Which brings me to my next point:\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. It feels like a loophole that often gets exploited so people can soapbox. Again, don’t know what can be done, but it’s annoying nonetheless\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting. Paragraphs exist for a reason, and it’s really annoying when the OP is this MASSIVE wall of text with no paragraph breaks.\n\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting. I know that y’all have no control over it, but in my opinion, downvoting is meant to be used to filter out spam and obvious trolls. \n\n\nBut in my experience the Reddit hive mind loves to just pound on the downvote button simply because someone disagrees with them, and once a comment has a couple of negative points, the Reddit hive mind loves to gang up on a slightly downvoted comment and downvote it into oblivion, until it eventually gets hidden. In a place that is supposed to be about open, rational and civil discourse, it’s frankly disrespectful. Again, I know that you have no control over it, but there are some subs that do have sticky messages discouraging downvoting precisely for this reason.\nThose are just some thoughts, and mostly just me venting. I understand that y’all don’t get paid, and I appreciate the work that you do.", ">\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. \n\nReport those for Rule B. A minor technicality delta isn't protection from a Rule B removal. We often do remove posts that try to protect against removal using deltas like this.\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\n\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting.\n\nNo one reads stickies and no matter what we try, Redditors won't use downvotes correctly. We'd disable them entirely if we could, but Reddit won't let us.", ">\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nSure there is, make some rules about formatting and take down posts that don't follow them. Plenty of other subs manage it just fine.", ">\n\nI mean, we do have rules about formatting, but those are 100% objective. Rule A requires 500+ characters, while Rule C requires the title to begin with “CMV:”. I’m not sure how to make such a rule for paragraphs that either could be automated or wouldn’t be time-consuming to moderate. What is your suggestion?", ">\n\nI don't personally moderate any subreddits and I am not familiar with the tools available to do so. Perhaps you could reach out to the moderators of other subreddits that do have post formatting requirements to determine what strategies they use to enforce them. \nr/HobbyDrama is fairly strict that your post must be pretty comprehensive, they may be able to offer advice. I'm sure others would have some ideas. \nI would also break views down into 3 categories: philosophical views, preferential views and views regarding objective facts. \nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts and follow some rules so you let shit fester on the front page, making it clear shit posts are acceptable.", ">\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people. It's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. Friction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. Forcing people to decide which of three categories their view falls into and then following a set of rules based on that category feels like bad friction.\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. Opening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.", ">\n\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people.\n\nIt is reasonable to expect people to follow rules to engage in a useful service \n\nIt's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\n\nBut when we don't understand what someone believes or why we can't do that. \n\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. \n\nThis is actually a good thing since you have repeatedly stated you don't have adequate moderation resources. \n\nFriction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. \n\nPeople that are open minded will read the rules and if there post is taken down will follow the instructions to repost it. \n\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. \n\nThen they frankly weren't that open to it in the first place. \n\nOpening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI'd say 40% plus of posts never open up to critique, they are feels over realz garbage. They not only waste time they make other posts worse by making this a place where garbage is accepted. \n\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.\n\nSometimes you need to make sacrifices to actually accomplish that mission rather than be a platform for misinformation. I would actually argue this subreddit damages the world right now.", ">\n\n\"Fresh Friday\" should start around US east coast morning because the sub is just completely dead each friday until 3pm in central european time.\n(obviously it won't make the sub super active but at least there could be one or two CMV)", ">\n\nOh good, I'm not the only one thinking that. \nLike they said, we are lucky to get a post or two before noon time EST.", ">\n\nHas there been any thought of a sort of automod post on the most common repeated topics? Or a sticky post/wiki with \"common CMV subjects\" for people to read through?\nIt gets tiring for the regular visitors here to repeatedly see the same topics posted, when they've been discussed to death and this new post has nothing different about the last one.\nA sort of \"This appears to be a commonly discussed subject, please check out these other similar CMV's where the OP's view was changed.\" Something to hopefully encourage folks to look at the common arguments and either rethink their own position or realize how their view is different and provide a more interesting/different take on the subject?", ">\n\nThose are already posted when someone submits a thread on a common topic. \nWe don't remove the thread, as we see CMVs as personal to the OP, but we do let them know that other threads exist touching on the subject.", ">\n\nAlthough this has been brought up before, block abuse is still a problem. People, especially OP, using blocks in response to good faith participation (usually in response to an argument they can't respond to or pressing a question they can't answer) is not healthy for this subreddit.", ">\n\nWe know. There is nothing we can do about it. I've begged the Admins for better tools to address the problem but have gotten no response.", ">\n\nCan you do nothing even when there are multiple users reporting they have been blocked and when the blocker is explicit about having blocked people? I didn't think this problem was so bad until a current CMV post when multiple people said they had been blocked by the same user who then (according to the OP) also blocked the OP.", ">\n\nWe have a long standing policy that we don't act on things we can't personally verify as true. This isn't to say that we don't trust you specifically, but people do lie; I've had people submit photoshopped screencaps to try and get people banned (the idiot photoshopped me without realizing I was a mod, so that didn't work out great for them). If we can't see it with our own eyes, we don't take action.\nIf we start taking a user's word for something, it becomes far too easy to weaponize and exploit.", ">\n\nIf a user is saying they have blocked people in their own public comments, does this not qualify as something you can personally verify as true?", ">\n\nIf the user themselves says that they blocked another user, then yes, we will take that into account. We remove comments like that for Rule 3.", ">\n\nOkay: I will report the instance I am aware of for a rule 3 violation. Thanks.", ">\n\nI feel like there should be some sort of rule where an OP has to read some basic information about gender-related issues before posting about them, so often there are CMVs about gender topics that could have their view changed by a 20 second google. It would be nice if the OPs posting about gender had at least a basic awareness of what happens.\nFor example, today there was a post about teens transitioning and the OP had no idea puberty blockers even existed", ">\n\nNot everyone has a rational basis for what they believe. If you can educate them by providing evidence that they didn't know was out there, isn't that a good thing?" ]
> what changes have been put into place because of this bimonthly feedback here if any? There have been a few. Off the top of my head, we've made adjustments to how we handle the influx of gender-related posts and the Rule B pre-removal message is a direct result of suggestions here. The problem is that we don't get a ton of actionable feedback from folks. People either ask for things that fundamentally change what CMV is (which we won't do) or things that aren't realistically possible (due to Reddit limitations or lack of developers for custom bots). We have these threads because we want to listen, but not every suggestion is something we'll accept. What criteria is ever used for demonstrating this? The Rule B wiki has a very long list of the criteria we use to evaluate that rule. why not at least put that reason in there We'd like to do that, but we simply don't have the manpower to go through and provide specific examples for every removal. Frankly, we already struggle to keep up with the workload here, so anything that increases that workload isn't something we can consider until we get a significant number of moderators.	[ "So first off, I realize there’s probably not much that can be done about this, so this mostly me just venting.\nBut theres several common occurrences on this sub that I frequently see that rub me the wrong way:\n\n\nThe personal therapy posts. I’ve always felt that this sub is supposed to be about changing peoples views they have about some aspect of how the world works. But there are a lot of posts where it’s clearly people just looking for some kind of therapy/validation for their personal situation. “Change my view that my life doesn’t suck” or stuff that’s more meant for an r/AmITheAsshole kind of sub.\n\n\nThe broad stroke generalizations based solely on personal anecdotes. I’ve also seen a lot of posts where someone will make an incredibly broad stroke generalization based on their single data point personal anecdote, and all it would reasonably take to change their view and prove them wrong is someone else’s personal anecdote demonstrating contrary to their point. \n\n\nJust the other day I saw some post where someone was basically like “I never got any use out of student clubs, therefore they are of no good to anybody, and should be banned.” There were immediately countless other people chiming in with their equally anecdotal stories that they saw great benefit from clubs at schools, so clearly OP is objectively wrong, and it should be an open and shut case, but the person wouldn’t change their view. Eventually they awarded a delta on some minor technicality, but I had jumped in to the convo after the delta had been awarded, and they were still rigidly holding on to their original view. Which brings me to my next point:\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. It feels like a loophole that often gets exploited so people can soapbox. Again, don’t know what can be done, but it’s annoying nonetheless\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting. Paragraphs exist for a reason, and it’s really annoying when the OP is this MASSIVE wall of text with no paragraph breaks.\n\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting. I know that y’all have no control over it, but in my opinion, downvoting is meant to be used to filter out spam and obvious trolls. \n\n\nBut in my experience the Reddit hive mind loves to just pound on the downvote button simply because someone disagrees with them, and once a comment has a couple of negative points, the Reddit hive mind loves to gang up on a slightly downvoted comment and downvote it into oblivion, until it eventually gets hidden. In a place that is supposed to be about open, rational and civil discourse, it’s frankly disrespectful. Again, I know that you have no control over it, but there are some subs that do have sticky messages discouraging downvoting precisely for this reason.\nThose are just some thoughts, and mostly just me venting. I understand that y’all don’t get paid, and I appreciate the work that you do.", ">\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. \n\nReport those for Rule B. A minor technicality delta isn't protection from a Rule B removal. We often do remove posts that try to protect against removal using deltas like this.\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\n\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting.\n\nNo one reads stickies and no matter what we try, Redditors won't use downvotes correctly. We'd disable them entirely if we could, but Reddit won't let us.", ">\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nSure there is, make some rules about formatting and take down posts that don't follow them. Plenty of other subs manage it just fine.", ">\n\nI mean, we do have rules about formatting, but those are 100% objective. Rule A requires 500+ characters, while Rule C requires the title to begin with “CMV:”. I’m not sure how to make such a rule for paragraphs that either could be automated or wouldn’t be time-consuming to moderate. What is your suggestion?", ">\n\nI don't personally moderate any subreddits and I am not familiar with the tools available to do so. Perhaps you could reach out to the moderators of other subreddits that do have post formatting requirements to determine what strategies they use to enforce them. \nr/HobbyDrama is fairly strict that your post must be pretty comprehensive, they may be able to offer advice. I'm sure others would have some ideas. \nI would also break views down into 3 categories: philosophical views, preferential views and views regarding objective facts. \nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts and follow some rules so you let shit fester on the front page, making it clear shit posts are acceptable.", ">\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people. It's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. Friction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. Forcing people to decide which of three categories their view falls into and then following a set of rules based on that category feels like bad friction.\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. Opening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.", ">\n\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people.\n\nIt is reasonable to expect people to follow rules to engage in a useful service \n\nIt's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\n\nBut when we don't understand what someone believes or why we can't do that. \n\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. \n\nThis is actually a good thing since you have repeatedly stated you don't have adequate moderation resources. \n\nFriction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. \n\nPeople that are open minded will read the rules and if there post is taken down will follow the instructions to repost it. \n\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. \n\nThen they frankly weren't that open to it in the first place. \n\nOpening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI'd say 40% plus of posts never open up to critique, they are feels over realz garbage. They not only waste time they make other posts worse by making this a place where garbage is accepted. \n\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.\n\nSometimes you need to make sacrifices to actually accomplish that mission rather than be a platform for misinformation. I would actually argue this subreddit damages the world right now.", ">\n\n\"Fresh Friday\" should start around US east coast morning because the sub is just completely dead each friday until 3pm in central european time.\n(obviously it won't make the sub super active but at least there could be one or two CMV)", ">\n\nOh good, I'm not the only one thinking that. \nLike they said, we are lucky to get a post or two before noon time EST.", ">\n\nHas there been any thought of a sort of automod post on the most common repeated topics? Or a sticky post/wiki with \"common CMV subjects\" for people to read through?\nIt gets tiring for the regular visitors here to repeatedly see the same topics posted, when they've been discussed to death and this new post has nothing different about the last one.\nA sort of \"This appears to be a commonly discussed subject, please check out these other similar CMV's where the OP's view was changed.\" Something to hopefully encourage folks to look at the common arguments and either rethink their own position or realize how their view is different and provide a more interesting/different take on the subject?", ">\n\nThose are already posted when someone submits a thread on a common topic. \nWe don't remove the thread, as we see CMVs as personal to the OP, but we do let them know that other threads exist touching on the subject.", ">\n\nAlthough this has been brought up before, block abuse is still a problem. People, especially OP, using blocks in response to good faith participation (usually in response to an argument they can't respond to or pressing a question they can't answer) is not healthy for this subreddit.", ">\n\nWe know. There is nothing we can do about it. I've begged the Admins for better tools to address the problem but have gotten no response.", ">\n\nCan you do nothing even when there are multiple users reporting they have been blocked and when the blocker is explicit about having blocked people? I didn't think this problem was so bad until a current CMV post when multiple people said they had been blocked by the same user who then (according to the OP) also blocked the OP.", ">\n\nWe have a long standing policy that we don't act on things we can't personally verify as true. This isn't to say that we don't trust you specifically, but people do lie; I've had people submit photoshopped screencaps to try and get people banned (the idiot photoshopped me without realizing I was a mod, so that didn't work out great for them). If we can't see it with our own eyes, we don't take action.\nIf we start taking a user's word for something, it becomes far too easy to weaponize and exploit.", ">\n\nIf a user is saying they have blocked people in their own public comments, does this not qualify as something you can personally verify as true?", ">\n\nIf the user themselves says that they blocked another user, then yes, we will take that into account. We remove comments like that for Rule 3.", ">\n\nOkay: I will report the instance I am aware of for a rule 3 violation. Thanks.", ">\n\nI feel like there should be some sort of rule where an OP has to read some basic information about gender-related issues before posting about them, so often there are CMVs about gender topics that could have their view changed by a 20 second google. It would be nice if the OPs posting about gender had at least a basic awareness of what happens.\nFor example, today there was a post about teens transitioning and the OP had no idea puberty blockers even existed", ">\n\nNot everyone has a rational basis for what they believe. If you can educate them by providing evidence that they didn't know was out there, isn't that a good thing?", ">\n\nout of curiosity, what changes have been put into place because of this bimonthly feedback here if any?\nI'm also curious what could be done about threads that have hundreds of replies, and an OP who is clearly there and responding, and then the thread just goes away because \"You must demonstrate you are open to the view changing\".\nWhat criteria is ever used for demonstrating this? Perhaps when a thread is hundreds of replies deep, there must clearly be a reason for the removal, not just a 'vibe'... why not at least put that reason in there instead of just removing and saying \"Rule 2\"?" ]
> Off the top of my head, we've made adjustments to how we handle the influx of gender-related posts Can you expand on this? What adjustments have been made? I used to really enjoy this subreddit, but have lately been feeling that the constant posts about gender (which inevitably are either pushing some hateful rhetoric or get filled up with it in the comments) have been taxing on my mental state and I've had to begin avoiding coming here all together.	[ "So first off, I realize there’s probably not much that can be done about this, so this mostly me just venting.\nBut theres several common occurrences on this sub that I frequently see that rub me the wrong way:\n\n\nThe personal therapy posts. I’ve always felt that this sub is supposed to be about changing peoples views they have about some aspect of how the world works. But there are a lot of posts where it’s clearly people just looking for some kind of therapy/validation for their personal situation. “Change my view that my life doesn’t suck” or stuff that’s more meant for an r/AmITheAsshole kind of sub.\n\n\nThe broad stroke generalizations based solely on personal anecdotes. I’ve also seen a lot of posts where someone will make an incredibly broad stroke generalization based on their single data point personal anecdote, and all it would reasonably take to change their view and prove them wrong is someone else’s personal anecdote demonstrating contrary to their point. \n\n\nJust the other day I saw some post where someone was basically like “I never got any use out of student clubs, therefore they are of no good to anybody, and should be banned.” There were immediately countless other people chiming in with their equally anecdotal stories that they saw great benefit from clubs at schools, so clearly OP is objectively wrong, and it should be an open and shut case, but the person wouldn’t change their view. Eventually they awarded a delta on some minor technicality, but I had jumped in to the convo after the delta had been awarded, and they were still rigidly holding on to their original view. Which brings me to my next point:\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. It feels like a loophole that often gets exploited so people can soapbox. Again, don’t know what can be done, but it’s annoying nonetheless\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting. Paragraphs exist for a reason, and it’s really annoying when the OP is this MASSIVE wall of text with no paragraph breaks.\n\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting. I know that y’all have no control over it, but in my opinion, downvoting is meant to be used to filter out spam and obvious trolls. \n\n\nBut in my experience the Reddit hive mind loves to just pound on the downvote button simply because someone disagrees with them, and once a comment has a couple of negative points, the Reddit hive mind loves to gang up on a slightly downvoted comment and downvote it into oblivion, until it eventually gets hidden. In a place that is supposed to be about open, rational and civil discourse, it’s frankly disrespectful. Again, I know that you have no control over it, but there are some subs that do have sticky messages discouraging downvoting precisely for this reason.\nThose are just some thoughts, and mostly just me venting. I understand that y’all don’t get paid, and I appreciate the work that you do.", ">\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. \n\nReport those for Rule B. A minor technicality delta isn't protection from a Rule B removal. We often do remove posts that try to protect against removal using deltas like this.\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\n\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting.\n\nNo one reads stickies and no matter what we try, Redditors won't use downvotes correctly. We'd disable them entirely if we could, but Reddit won't let us.", ">\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nSure there is, make some rules about formatting and take down posts that don't follow them. Plenty of other subs manage it just fine.", ">\n\nI mean, we do have rules about formatting, but those are 100% objective. Rule A requires 500+ characters, while Rule C requires the title to begin with “CMV:”. I’m not sure how to make such a rule for paragraphs that either could be automated or wouldn’t be time-consuming to moderate. What is your suggestion?", ">\n\nI don't personally moderate any subreddits and I am not familiar with the tools available to do so. Perhaps you could reach out to the moderators of other subreddits that do have post formatting requirements to determine what strategies they use to enforce them. \nr/HobbyDrama is fairly strict that your post must be pretty comprehensive, they may be able to offer advice. I'm sure others would have some ideas. \nI would also break views down into 3 categories: philosophical views, preferential views and views regarding objective facts. \nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts and follow some rules so you let shit fester on the front page, making it clear shit posts are acceptable.", ">\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people. It's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. Friction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. Forcing people to decide which of three categories their view falls into and then following a set of rules based on that category feels like bad friction.\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. Opening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.", ">\n\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people.\n\nIt is reasonable to expect people to follow rules to engage in a useful service \n\nIt's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\n\nBut when we don't understand what someone believes or why we can't do that. \n\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. \n\nThis is actually a good thing since you have repeatedly stated you don't have adequate moderation resources. \n\nFriction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. \n\nPeople that are open minded will read the rules and if there post is taken down will follow the instructions to repost it. \n\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. \n\nThen they frankly weren't that open to it in the first place. \n\nOpening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI'd say 40% plus of posts never open up to critique, they are feels over realz garbage. They not only waste time they make other posts worse by making this a place where garbage is accepted. \n\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.\n\nSometimes you need to make sacrifices to actually accomplish that mission rather than be a platform for misinformation. I would actually argue this subreddit damages the world right now.", ">\n\n\"Fresh Friday\" should start around US east coast morning because the sub is just completely dead each friday until 3pm in central european time.\n(obviously it won't make the sub super active but at least there could be one or two CMV)", ">\n\nOh good, I'm not the only one thinking that. \nLike they said, we are lucky to get a post or two before noon time EST.", ">\n\nHas there been any thought of a sort of automod post on the most common repeated topics? Or a sticky post/wiki with \"common CMV subjects\" for people to read through?\nIt gets tiring for the regular visitors here to repeatedly see the same topics posted, when they've been discussed to death and this new post has nothing different about the last one.\nA sort of \"This appears to be a commonly discussed subject, please check out these other similar CMV's where the OP's view was changed.\" Something to hopefully encourage folks to look at the common arguments and either rethink their own position or realize how their view is different and provide a more interesting/different take on the subject?", ">\n\nThose are already posted when someone submits a thread on a common topic. \nWe don't remove the thread, as we see CMVs as personal to the OP, but we do let them know that other threads exist touching on the subject.", ">\n\nAlthough this has been brought up before, block abuse is still a problem. People, especially OP, using blocks in response to good faith participation (usually in response to an argument they can't respond to or pressing a question they can't answer) is not healthy for this subreddit.", ">\n\nWe know. There is nothing we can do about it. I've begged the Admins for better tools to address the problem but have gotten no response.", ">\n\nCan you do nothing even when there are multiple users reporting they have been blocked and when the blocker is explicit about having blocked people? I didn't think this problem was so bad until a current CMV post when multiple people said they had been blocked by the same user who then (according to the OP) also blocked the OP.", ">\n\nWe have a long standing policy that we don't act on things we can't personally verify as true. This isn't to say that we don't trust you specifically, but people do lie; I've had people submit photoshopped screencaps to try and get people banned (the idiot photoshopped me without realizing I was a mod, so that didn't work out great for them). If we can't see it with our own eyes, we don't take action.\nIf we start taking a user's word for something, it becomes far too easy to weaponize and exploit.", ">\n\nIf a user is saying they have blocked people in their own public comments, does this not qualify as something you can personally verify as true?", ">\n\nIf the user themselves says that they blocked another user, then yes, we will take that into account. We remove comments like that for Rule 3.", ">\n\nOkay: I will report the instance I am aware of for a rule 3 violation. Thanks.", ">\n\nI feel like there should be some sort of rule where an OP has to read some basic information about gender-related issues before posting about them, so often there are CMVs about gender topics that could have their view changed by a 20 second google. It would be nice if the OPs posting about gender had at least a basic awareness of what happens.\nFor example, today there was a post about teens transitioning and the OP had no idea puberty blockers even existed", ">\n\nNot everyone has a rational basis for what they believe. If you can educate them by providing evidence that they didn't know was out there, isn't that a good thing?", ">\n\nout of curiosity, what changes have been put into place because of this bimonthly feedback here if any?\nI'm also curious what could be done about threads that have hundreds of replies, and an OP who is clearly there and responding, and then the thread just goes away because \"You must demonstrate you are open to the view changing\".\nWhat criteria is ever used for demonstrating this? Perhaps when a thread is hundreds of replies deep, there must clearly be a reason for the removal, not just a 'vibe'... why not at least put that reason in there instead of just removing and saying \"Rule 2\"?", ">\n\n\nwhat changes have been put into place because of this bimonthly feedback here if any?\n\nThere have been a few. Off the top of my head, we've made adjustments to how we handle the influx of gender-related posts and the Rule B pre-removal message is a direct result of suggestions here.\nThe problem is that we don't get a ton of actionable feedback from folks. People either ask for things that fundamentally change what CMV is (which we won't do) or things that aren't realistically possible (due to Reddit limitations or lack of developers for custom bots).\nWe have these threads because we want to listen, but not every suggestion is something we'll accept.\n\nWhat criteria is ever used for demonstrating this?\n\nThe Rule B wiki has a very long list of the criteria we use to evaluate that rule.\n\nwhy not at least put that reason in there\n\nWe'd like to do that, but we simply don't have the manpower to go through and provide specific examples for every removal. Frankly, we already struggle to keep up with the workload here, so anything that increases that workload isn't something we can consider until we get a significant number of moderators." ]
> We limit posts on gender-related topics to a single active post per day. Trust me, there are a lot more that try to get through that we stop. We don't get them all (sometimes one gets through that we don't see) but I'd guess that we end up pulling 2/3 of the gender stuff that gets posted. We are also much more heavily policing off-topic gender rants in posts not about that topic (under Rule 5). I get that it is taxing, but one of our core values is that we, as the moderation team, don't decide what views are off-limits. We won't ban a topic entirely (save the few that are listed in Rule D) so there will always be gender-related posts here.	[ "So first off, I realize there’s probably not much that can be done about this, so this mostly me just venting.\nBut theres several common occurrences on this sub that I frequently see that rub me the wrong way:\n\n\nThe personal therapy posts. I’ve always felt that this sub is supposed to be about changing peoples views they have about some aspect of how the world works. But there are a lot of posts where it’s clearly people just looking for some kind of therapy/validation for their personal situation. “Change my view that my life doesn’t suck” or stuff that’s more meant for an r/AmITheAsshole kind of sub.\n\n\nThe broad stroke generalizations based solely on personal anecdotes. I’ve also seen a lot of posts where someone will make an incredibly broad stroke generalization based on their single data point personal anecdote, and all it would reasonably take to change their view and prove them wrong is someone else’s personal anecdote demonstrating contrary to their point. \n\n\nJust the other day I saw some post where someone was basically like “I never got any use out of student clubs, therefore they are of no good to anybody, and should be banned.” There were immediately countless other people chiming in with their equally anecdotal stories that they saw great benefit from clubs at schools, so clearly OP is objectively wrong, and it should be an open and shut case, but the person wouldn’t change their view. Eventually they awarded a delta on some minor technicality, but I had jumped in to the convo after the delta had been awarded, and they were still rigidly holding on to their original view. Which brings me to my next point:\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. It feels like a loophole that often gets exploited so people can soapbox. Again, don’t know what can be done, but it’s annoying nonetheless\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting. Paragraphs exist for a reason, and it’s really annoying when the OP is this MASSIVE wall of text with no paragraph breaks.\n\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting. I know that y’all have no control over it, but in my opinion, downvoting is meant to be used to filter out spam and obvious trolls. \n\n\nBut in my experience the Reddit hive mind loves to just pound on the downvote button simply because someone disagrees with them, and once a comment has a couple of negative points, the Reddit hive mind loves to gang up on a slightly downvoted comment and downvote it into oblivion, until it eventually gets hidden. In a place that is supposed to be about open, rational and civil discourse, it’s frankly disrespectful. Again, I know that you have no control over it, but there are some subs that do have sticky messages discouraging downvoting precisely for this reason.\nThose are just some thoughts, and mostly just me venting. I understand that y’all don’t get paid, and I appreciate the work that you do.", ">\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. \n\nReport those for Rule B. A minor technicality delta isn't protection from a Rule B removal. We often do remove posts that try to protect against removal using deltas like this.\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\n\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting.\n\nNo one reads stickies and no matter what we try, Redditors won't use downvotes correctly. We'd disable them entirely if we could, but Reddit won't let us.", ">\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nSure there is, make some rules about formatting and take down posts that don't follow them. Plenty of other subs manage it just fine.", ">\n\nI mean, we do have rules about formatting, but those are 100% objective. Rule A requires 500+ characters, while Rule C requires the title to begin with “CMV:”. I’m not sure how to make such a rule for paragraphs that either could be automated or wouldn’t be time-consuming to moderate. What is your suggestion?", ">\n\nI don't personally moderate any subreddits and I am not familiar with the tools available to do so. Perhaps you could reach out to the moderators of other subreddits that do have post formatting requirements to determine what strategies they use to enforce them. \nr/HobbyDrama is fairly strict that your post must be pretty comprehensive, they may be able to offer advice. I'm sure others would have some ideas. \nI would also break views down into 3 categories: philosophical views, preferential views and views regarding objective facts. \nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts and follow some rules so you let shit fester on the front page, making it clear shit posts are acceptable.", ">\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people. It's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. Friction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. Forcing people to decide which of three categories their view falls into and then following a set of rules based on that category feels like bad friction.\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. Opening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.", ">\n\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people.\n\nIt is reasonable to expect people to follow rules to engage in a useful service \n\nIt's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\n\nBut when we don't understand what someone believes or why we can't do that. \n\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. \n\nThis is actually a good thing since you have repeatedly stated you don't have adequate moderation resources. \n\nFriction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. \n\nPeople that are open minded will read the rules and if there post is taken down will follow the instructions to repost it. \n\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. \n\nThen they frankly weren't that open to it in the first place. \n\nOpening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI'd say 40% plus of posts never open up to critique, they are feels over realz garbage. They not only waste time they make other posts worse by making this a place where garbage is accepted. \n\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.\n\nSometimes you need to make sacrifices to actually accomplish that mission rather than be a platform for misinformation. I would actually argue this subreddit damages the world right now.", ">\n\n\"Fresh Friday\" should start around US east coast morning because the sub is just completely dead each friday until 3pm in central european time.\n(obviously it won't make the sub super active but at least there could be one or two CMV)", ">\n\nOh good, I'm not the only one thinking that. \nLike they said, we are lucky to get a post or two before noon time EST.", ">\n\nHas there been any thought of a sort of automod post on the most common repeated topics? Or a sticky post/wiki with \"common CMV subjects\" for people to read through?\nIt gets tiring for the regular visitors here to repeatedly see the same topics posted, when they've been discussed to death and this new post has nothing different about the last one.\nA sort of \"This appears to be a commonly discussed subject, please check out these other similar CMV's where the OP's view was changed.\" Something to hopefully encourage folks to look at the common arguments and either rethink their own position or realize how their view is different and provide a more interesting/different take on the subject?", ">\n\nThose are already posted when someone submits a thread on a common topic. \nWe don't remove the thread, as we see CMVs as personal to the OP, but we do let them know that other threads exist touching on the subject.", ">\n\nAlthough this has been brought up before, block abuse is still a problem. People, especially OP, using blocks in response to good faith participation (usually in response to an argument they can't respond to or pressing a question they can't answer) is not healthy for this subreddit.", ">\n\nWe know. There is nothing we can do about it. I've begged the Admins for better tools to address the problem but have gotten no response.", ">\n\nCan you do nothing even when there are multiple users reporting they have been blocked and when the blocker is explicit about having blocked people? I didn't think this problem was so bad until a current CMV post when multiple people said they had been blocked by the same user who then (according to the OP) also blocked the OP.", ">\n\nWe have a long standing policy that we don't act on things we can't personally verify as true. This isn't to say that we don't trust you specifically, but people do lie; I've had people submit photoshopped screencaps to try and get people banned (the idiot photoshopped me without realizing I was a mod, so that didn't work out great for them). If we can't see it with our own eyes, we don't take action.\nIf we start taking a user's word for something, it becomes far too easy to weaponize and exploit.", ">\n\nIf a user is saying they have blocked people in their own public comments, does this not qualify as something you can personally verify as true?", ">\n\nIf the user themselves says that they blocked another user, then yes, we will take that into account. We remove comments like that for Rule 3.", ">\n\nOkay: I will report the instance I am aware of for a rule 3 violation. Thanks.", ">\n\nI feel like there should be some sort of rule where an OP has to read some basic information about gender-related issues before posting about them, so often there are CMVs about gender topics that could have their view changed by a 20 second google. It would be nice if the OPs posting about gender had at least a basic awareness of what happens.\nFor example, today there was a post about teens transitioning and the OP had no idea puberty blockers even existed", ">\n\nNot everyone has a rational basis for what they believe. If you can educate them by providing evidence that they didn't know was out there, isn't that a good thing?", ">\n\nout of curiosity, what changes have been put into place because of this bimonthly feedback here if any?\nI'm also curious what could be done about threads that have hundreds of replies, and an OP who is clearly there and responding, and then the thread just goes away because \"You must demonstrate you are open to the view changing\".\nWhat criteria is ever used for demonstrating this? Perhaps when a thread is hundreds of replies deep, there must clearly be a reason for the removal, not just a 'vibe'... why not at least put that reason in there instead of just removing and saying \"Rule 2\"?", ">\n\n\nwhat changes have been put into place because of this bimonthly feedback here if any?\n\nThere have been a few. Off the top of my head, we've made adjustments to how we handle the influx of gender-related posts and the Rule B pre-removal message is a direct result of suggestions here.\nThe problem is that we don't get a ton of actionable feedback from folks. People either ask for things that fundamentally change what CMV is (which we won't do) or things that aren't realistically possible (due to Reddit limitations or lack of developers for custom bots).\nWe have these threads because we want to listen, but not every suggestion is something we'll accept.\n\nWhat criteria is ever used for demonstrating this?\n\nThe Rule B wiki has a very long list of the criteria we use to evaluate that rule.\n\nwhy not at least put that reason in there\n\nWe'd like to do that, but we simply don't have the manpower to go through and provide specific examples for every removal. Frankly, we already struggle to keep up with the workload here, so anything that increases that workload isn't something we can consider until we get a significant number of moderators.", ">\n\n\nOff the top of my head, we've made adjustments to how we handle the influx of gender-related posts\n\nCan you expand on this? What adjustments have been made?\nI used to really enjoy this subreddit, but have lately been feeling that the constant posts about gender (which inevitably are either pushing some hateful rhetoric or get filled up with it in the comments) have been taxing on my mental state and I've had to begin avoiding coming here all together." ]
> Out of curiosity, why is the most recent post perma locked? I noticed it’s locked with loads is disinformation still up within the post, and since it’s locked it’s upvotes have increased 25%, leaving it as the number one post for days. How does leaving this locked topic with loads of disinformation at the top of your sub help improve its function?	[ "So first off, I realize there’s probably not much that can be done about this, so this mostly me just venting.\nBut theres several common occurrences on this sub that I frequently see that rub me the wrong way:\n\n\nThe personal therapy posts. I’ve always felt that this sub is supposed to be about changing peoples views they have about some aspect of how the world works. But there are a lot of posts where it’s clearly people just looking for some kind of therapy/validation for their personal situation. “Change my view that my life doesn’t suck” or stuff that’s more meant for an r/AmITheAsshole kind of sub.\n\n\nThe broad stroke generalizations based solely on personal anecdotes. I’ve also seen a lot of posts where someone will make an incredibly broad stroke generalization based on their single data point personal anecdote, and all it would reasonably take to change their view and prove them wrong is someone else’s personal anecdote demonstrating contrary to their point. \n\n\nJust the other day I saw some post where someone was basically like “I never got any use out of student clubs, therefore they are of no good to anybody, and should be banned.” There were immediately countless other people chiming in with their equally anecdotal stories that they saw great benefit from clubs at schools, so clearly OP is objectively wrong, and it should be an open and shut case, but the person wouldn’t change their view. Eventually they awarded a delta on some minor technicality, but I had jumped in to the convo after the delta had been awarded, and they were still rigidly holding on to their original view. Which brings me to my next point:\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. It feels like a loophole that often gets exploited so people can soapbox. Again, don’t know what can be done, but it’s annoying nonetheless\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting. Paragraphs exist for a reason, and it’s really annoying when the OP is this MASSIVE wall of text with no paragraph breaks.\n\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting. I know that y’all have no control over it, but in my opinion, downvoting is meant to be used to filter out spam and obvious trolls. \n\n\nBut in my experience the Reddit hive mind loves to just pound on the downvote button simply because someone disagrees with them, and once a comment has a couple of negative points, the Reddit hive mind loves to gang up on a slightly downvoted comment and downvote it into oblivion, until it eventually gets hidden. In a place that is supposed to be about open, rational and civil discourse, it’s frankly disrespectful. Again, I know that you have no control over it, but there are some subs that do have sticky messages discouraging downvoting precisely for this reason.\nThose are just some thoughts, and mostly just me venting. I understand that y’all don’t get paid, and I appreciate the work that you do.", ">\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. \n\nReport those for Rule B. A minor technicality delta isn't protection from a Rule B removal. We often do remove posts that try to protect against removal using deltas like this.\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\n\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting.\n\nNo one reads stickies and no matter what we try, Redditors won't use downvotes correctly. We'd disable them entirely if we could, but Reddit won't let us.", ">\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nSure there is, make some rules about formatting and take down posts that don't follow them. Plenty of other subs manage it just fine.", ">\n\nI mean, we do have rules about formatting, but those are 100% objective. Rule A requires 500+ characters, while Rule C requires the title to begin with “CMV:”. I’m not sure how to make such a rule for paragraphs that either could be automated or wouldn’t be time-consuming to moderate. What is your suggestion?", ">\n\nI don't personally moderate any subreddits and I am not familiar with the tools available to do so. Perhaps you could reach out to the moderators of other subreddits that do have post formatting requirements to determine what strategies they use to enforce them. \nr/HobbyDrama is fairly strict that your post must be pretty comprehensive, they may be able to offer advice. I'm sure others would have some ideas. \nI would also break views down into 3 categories: philosophical views, preferential views and views regarding objective facts. \nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts and follow some rules so you let shit fester on the front page, making it clear shit posts are acceptable.", ">\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people. It's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. Friction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. Forcing people to decide which of three categories their view falls into and then following a set of rules based on that category feels like bad friction.\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. Opening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.", ">\n\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people.\n\nIt is reasonable to expect people to follow rules to engage in a useful service \n\nIt's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\n\nBut when we don't understand what someone believes or why we can't do that. \n\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. \n\nThis is actually a good thing since you have repeatedly stated you don't have adequate moderation resources. \n\nFriction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. \n\nPeople that are open minded will read the rules and if there post is taken down will follow the instructions to repost it. \n\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. \n\nThen they frankly weren't that open to it in the first place. \n\nOpening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI'd say 40% plus of posts never open up to critique, they are feels over realz garbage. They not only waste time they make other posts worse by making this a place where garbage is accepted. \n\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.\n\nSometimes you need to make sacrifices to actually accomplish that mission rather than be a platform for misinformation. I would actually argue this subreddit damages the world right now.", ">\n\n\"Fresh Friday\" should start around US east coast morning because the sub is just completely dead each friday until 3pm in central european time.\n(obviously it won't make the sub super active but at least there could be one or two CMV)", ">\n\nOh good, I'm not the only one thinking that. \nLike they said, we are lucky to get a post or two before noon time EST.", ">\n\nHas there been any thought of a sort of automod post on the most common repeated topics? Or a sticky post/wiki with \"common CMV subjects\" for people to read through?\nIt gets tiring for the regular visitors here to repeatedly see the same topics posted, when they've been discussed to death and this new post has nothing different about the last one.\nA sort of \"This appears to be a commonly discussed subject, please check out these other similar CMV's where the OP's view was changed.\" Something to hopefully encourage folks to look at the common arguments and either rethink their own position or realize how their view is different and provide a more interesting/different take on the subject?", ">\n\nThose are already posted when someone submits a thread on a common topic. \nWe don't remove the thread, as we see CMVs as personal to the OP, but we do let them know that other threads exist touching on the subject.", ">\n\nAlthough this has been brought up before, block abuse is still a problem. People, especially OP, using blocks in response to good faith participation (usually in response to an argument they can't respond to or pressing a question they can't answer) is not healthy for this subreddit.", ">\n\nWe know. There is nothing we can do about it. I've begged the Admins for better tools to address the problem but have gotten no response.", ">\n\nCan you do nothing even when there are multiple users reporting they have been blocked and when the blocker is explicit about having blocked people? I didn't think this problem was so bad until a current CMV post when multiple people said they had been blocked by the same user who then (according to the OP) also blocked the OP.", ">\n\nWe have a long standing policy that we don't act on things we can't personally verify as true. This isn't to say that we don't trust you specifically, but people do lie; I've had people submit photoshopped screencaps to try and get people banned (the idiot photoshopped me without realizing I was a mod, so that didn't work out great for them). If we can't see it with our own eyes, we don't take action.\nIf we start taking a user's word for something, it becomes far too easy to weaponize and exploit.", ">\n\nIf a user is saying they have blocked people in their own public comments, does this not qualify as something you can personally verify as true?", ">\n\nIf the user themselves says that they blocked another user, then yes, we will take that into account. We remove comments like that for Rule 3.", ">\n\nOkay: I will report the instance I am aware of for a rule 3 violation. Thanks.", ">\n\nI feel like there should be some sort of rule where an OP has to read some basic information about gender-related issues before posting about them, so often there are CMVs about gender topics that could have their view changed by a 20 second google. It would be nice if the OPs posting about gender had at least a basic awareness of what happens.\nFor example, today there was a post about teens transitioning and the OP had no idea puberty blockers even existed", ">\n\nNot everyone has a rational basis for what they believe. If you can educate them by providing evidence that they didn't know was out there, isn't that a good thing?", ">\n\nout of curiosity, what changes have been put into place because of this bimonthly feedback here if any?\nI'm also curious what could be done about threads that have hundreds of replies, and an OP who is clearly there and responding, and then the thread just goes away because \"You must demonstrate you are open to the view changing\".\nWhat criteria is ever used for demonstrating this? Perhaps when a thread is hundreds of replies deep, there must clearly be a reason for the removal, not just a 'vibe'... why not at least put that reason in there instead of just removing and saying \"Rule 2\"?", ">\n\n\nwhat changes have been put into place because of this bimonthly feedback here if any?\n\nThere have been a few. Off the top of my head, we've made adjustments to how we handle the influx of gender-related posts and the Rule B pre-removal message is a direct result of suggestions here.\nThe problem is that we don't get a ton of actionable feedback from folks. People either ask for things that fundamentally change what CMV is (which we won't do) or things that aren't realistically possible (due to Reddit limitations or lack of developers for custom bots).\nWe have these threads because we want to listen, but not every suggestion is something we'll accept.\n\nWhat criteria is ever used for demonstrating this?\n\nThe Rule B wiki has a very long list of the criteria we use to evaluate that rule.\n\nwhy not at least put that reason in there\n\nWe'd like to do that, but we simply don't have the manpower to go through and provide specific examples for every removal. Frankly, we already struggle to keep up with the workload here, so anything that increases that workload isn't something we can consider until we get a significant number of moderators.", ">\n\n\nOff the top of my head, we've made adjustments to how we handle the influx of gender-related posts\n\nCan you expand on this? What adjustments have been made?\nI used to really enjoy this subreddit, but have lately been feeling that the constant posts about gender (which inevitably are either pushing some hateful rhetoric or get filled up with it in the comments) have been taxing on my mental state and I've had to begin avoiding coming here all together.", ">\n\nWe limit posts on gender-related topics to a single active post per day. Trust me, there are a lot more that try to get through that we stop. We don't get them all (sometimes one gets through that we don't see) but I'd guess that we end up pulling 2/3 of the gender stuff that gets posted. We are also much more heavily policing off-topic gender rants in posts not about that topic (under Rule 5).\nI get that it is taxing, but one of our core values is that we, as the moderation team, don't decide what views are off-limits. We won't ban a topic entirely (save the few that are listed in Rule D) so there will always be gender-related posts here." ]
> There are hundreds of reports we are still trying to evaluate and clean up. The number of rule violations was overwhelming our team, so we had to pause it until we can get it back under control.	[ "So first off, I realize there’s probably not much that can be done about this, so this mostly me just venting.\nBut theres several common occurrences on this sub that I frequently see that rub me the wrong way:\n\n\nThe personal therapy posts. I’ve always felt that this sub is supposed to be about changing peoples views they have about some aspect of how the world works. But there are a lot of posts where it’s clearly people just looking for some kind of therapy/validation for their personal situation. “Change my view that my life doesn’t suck” or stuff that’s more meant for an r/AmITheAsshole kind of sub.\n\n\nThe broad stroke generalizations based solely on personal anecdotes. I’ve also seen a lot of posts where someone will make an incredibly broad stroke generalization based on their single data point personal anecdote, and all it would reasonably take to change their view and prove them wrong is someone else’s personal anecdote demonstrating contrary to their point. \n\n\nJust the other day I saw some post where someone was basically like “I never got any use out of student clubs, therefore they are of no good to anybody, and should be banned.” There were immediately countless other people chiming in with their equally anecdotal stories that they saw great benefit from clubs at schools, so clearly OP is objectively wrong, and it should be an open and shut case, but the person wouldn’t change their view. Eventually they awarded a delta on some minor technicality, but I had jumped in to the convo after the delta had been awarded, and they were still rigidly holding on to their original view. Which brings me to my next point:\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. It feels like a loophole that often gets exploited so people can soapbox. Again, don’t know what can be done, but it’s annoying nonetheless\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting. Paragraphs exist for a reason, and it’s really annoying when the OP is this MASSIVE wall of text with no paragraph breaks.\n\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting. I know that y’all have no control over it, but in my opinion, downvoting is meant to be used to filter out spam and obvious trolls. \n\n\nBut in my experience the Reddit hive mind loves to just pound on the downvote button simply because someone disagrees with them, and once a comment has a couple of negative points, the Reddit hive mind loves to gang up on a slightly downvoted comment and downvote it into oblivion, until it eventually gets hidden. In a place that is supposed to be about open, rational and civil discourse, it’s frankly disrespectful. Again, I know that you have no control over it, but there are some subs that do have sticky messages discouraging downvoting precisely for this reason.\nThose are just some thoughts, and mostly just me venting. I understand that y’all don’t get paid, and I appreciate the work that you do.", ">\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. \n\nReport those for Rule B. A minor technicality delta isn't protection from a Rule B removal. We often do remove posts that try to protect against removal using deltas like this.\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\n\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting.\n\nNo one reads stickies and no matter what we try, Redditors won't use downvotes correctly. We'd disable them entirely if we could, but Reddit won't let us.", ">\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nSure there is, make some rules about formatting and take down posts that don't follow them. Plenty of other subs manage it just fine.", ">\n\nI mean, we do have rules about formatting, but those are 100% objective. Rule A requires 500+ characters, while Rule C requires the title to begin with “CMV:”. I’m not sure how to make such a rule for paragraphs that either could be automated or wouldn’t be time-consuming to moderate. What is your suggestion?", ">\n\nI don't personally moderate any subreddits and I am not familiar with the tools available to do so. Perhaps you could reach out to the moderators of other subreddits that do have post formatting requirements to determine what strategies they use to enforce them. \nr/HobbyDrama is fairly strict that your post must be pretty comprehensive, they may be able to offer advice. I'm sure others would have some ideas. \nI would also break views down into 3 categories: philosophical views, preferential views and views regarding objective facts. \nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts and follow some rules so you let shit fester on the front page, making it clear shit posts are acceptable.", ">\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people. It's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. Friction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. Forcing people to decide which of three categories their view falls into and then following a set of rules based on that category feels like bad friction.\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. Opening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.", ">\n\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people.\n\nIt is reasonable to expect people to follow rules to engage in a useful service \n\nIt's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\n\nBut when we don't understand what someone believes or why we can't do that. \n\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. \n\nThis is actually a good thing since you have repeatedly stated you don't have adequate moderation resources. \n\nFriction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. \n\nPeople that are open minded will read the rules and if there post is taken down will follow the instructions to repost it. \n\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. \n\nThen they frankly weren't that open to it in the first place. \n\nOpening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI'd say 40% plus of posts never open up to critique, they are feels over realz garbage. They not only waste time they make other posts worse by making this a place where garbage is accepted. \n\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.\n\nSometimes you need to make sacrifices to actually accomplish that mission rather than be a platform for misinformation. I would actually argue this subreddit damages the world right now.", ">\n\n\"Fresh Friday\" should start around US east coast morning because the sub is just completely dead each friday until 3pm in central european time.\n(obviously it won't make the sub super active but at least there could be one or two CMV)", ">\n\nOh good, I'm not the only one thinking that. \nLike they said, we are lucky to get a post or two before noon time EST.", ">\n\nHas there been any thought of a sort of automod post on the most common repeated topics? Or a sticky post/wiki with \"common CMV subjects\" for people to read through?\nIt gets tiring for the regular visitors here to repeatedly see the same topics posted, when they've been discussed to death and this new post has nothing different about the last one.\nA sort of \"This appears to be a commonly discussed subject, please check out these other similar CMV's where the OP's view was changed.\" Something to hopefully encourage folks to look at the common arguments and either rethink their own position or realize how their view is different and provide a more interesting/different take on the subject?", ">\n\nThose are already posted when someone submits a thread on a common topic. \nWe don't remove the thread, as we see CMVs as personal to the OP, but we do let them know that other threads exist touching on the subject.", ">\n\nAlthough this has been brought up before, block abuse is still a problem. People, especially OP, using blocks in response to good faith participation (usually in response to an argument they can't respond to or pressing a question they can't answer) is not healthy for this subreddit.", ">\n\nWe know. There is nothing we can do about it. I've begged the Admins for better tools to address the problem but have gotten no response.", ">\n\nCan you do nothing even when there are multiple users reporting they have been blocked and when the blocker is explicit about having blocked people? I didn't think this problem was so bad until a current CMV post when multiple people said they had been blocked by the same user who then (according to the OP) also blocked the OP.", ">\n\nWe have a long standing policy that we don't act on things we can't personally verify as true. This isn't to say that we don't trust you specifically, but people do lie; I've had people submit photoshopped screencaps to try and get people banned (the idiot photoshopped me without realizing I was a mod, so that didn't work out great for them). If we can't see it with our own eyes, we don't take action.\nIf we start taking a user's word for something, it becomes far too easy to weaponize and exploit.", ">\n\nIf a user is saying they have blocked people in their own public comments, does this not qualify as something you can personally verify as true?", ">\n\nIf the user themselves says that they blocked another user, then yes, we will take that into account. We remove comments like that for Rule 3.", ">\n\nOkay: I will report the instance I am aware of for a rule 3 violation. Thanks.", ">\n\nI feel like there should be some sort of rule where an OP has to read some basic information about gender-related issues before posting about them, so often there are CMVs about gender topics that could have their view changed by a 20 second google. It would be nice if the OPs posting about gender had at least a basic awareness of what happens.\nFor example, today there was a post about teens transitioning and the OP had no idea puberty blockers even existed", ">\n\nNot everyone has a rational basis for what they believe. If you can educate them by providing evidence that they didn't know was out there, isn't that a good thing?", ">\n\nout of curiosity, what changes have been put into place because of this bimonthly feedback here if any?\nI'm also curious what could be done about threads that have hundreds of replies, and an OP who is clearly there and responding, and then the thread just goes away because \"You must demonstrate you are open to the view changing\".\nWhat criteria is ever used for demonstrating this? Perhaps when a thread is hundreds of replies deep, there must clearly be a reason for the removal, not just a 'vibe'... why not at least put that reason in there instead of just removing and saying \"Rule 2\"?", ">\n\n\nwhat changes have been put into place because of this bimonthly feedback here if any?\n\nThere have been a few. Off the top of my head, we've made adjustments to how we handle the influx of gender-related posts and the Rule B pre-removal message is a direct result of suggestions here.\nThe problem is that we don't get a ton of actionable feedback from folks. People either ask for things that fundamentally change what CMV is (which we won't do) or things that aren't realistically possible (due to Reddit limitations or lack of developers for custom bots).\nWe have these threads because we want to listen, but not every suggestion is something we'll accept.\n\nWhat criteria is ever used for demonstrating this?\n\nThe Rule B wiki has a very long list of the criteria we use to evaluate that rule.\n\nwhy not at least put that reason in there\n\nWe'd like to do that, but we simply don't have the manpower to go through and provide specific examples for every removal. Frankly, we already struggle to keep up with the workload here, so anything that increases that workload isn't something we can consider until we get a significant number of moderators.", ">\n\n\nOff the top of my head, we've made adjustments to how we handle the influx of gender-related posts\n\nCan you expand on this? What adjustments have been made?\nI used to really enjoy this subreddit, but have lately been feeling that the constant posts about gender (which inevitably are either pushing some hateful rhetoric or get filled up with it in the comments) have been taxing on my mental state and I've had to begin avoiding coming here all together.", ">\n\nWe limit posts on gender-related topics to a single active post per day. Trust me, there are a lot more that try to get through that we stop. We don't get them all (sometimes one gets through that we don't see) but I'd guess that we end up pulling 2/3 of the gender stuff that gets posted. We are also much more heavily policing off-topic gender rants in posts not about that topic (under Rule 5).\nI get that it is taxing, but one of our core values is that we, as the moderation team, don't decide what views are off-limits. We won't ban a topic entirely (save the few that are listed in Rule D) so there will always be gender-related posts here.", ">\n\nOut of curiosity, why is the most recent post perma locked? I noticed it’s locked with loads is disinformation still up within the post, and since it’s locked it’s upvotes have increased 25%, leaving it as the number one post for days. How does leaving this locked topic with loads of disinformation at the top of your sub help improve its function?" ]
> Do you think it’s working that you are upholding your ideas of a CMV sub and people come in here spreading more disinformation than you can handle? To the point where you have to leave it up, exposing untold numbers of visitors to said disinformation? It appears to me that this sub is very prone to the social media version of ‘the Gish gallop’.	[ "So first off, I realize there’s probably not much that can be done about this, so this mostly me just venting.\nBut theres several common occurrences on this sub that I frequently see that rub me the wrong way:\n\n\nThe personal therapy posts. I’ve always felt that this sub is supposed to be about changing peoples views they have about some aspect of how the world works. But there are a lot of posts where it’s clearly people just looking for some kind of therapy/validation for their personal situation. “Change my view that my life doesn’t suck” or stuff that’s more meant for an r/AmITheAsshole kind of sub.\n\n\nThe broad stroke generalizations based solely on personal anecdotes. I’ve also seen a lot of posts where someone will make an incredibly broad stroke generalization based on their single data point personal anecdote, and all it would reasonably take to change their view and prove them wrong is someone else’s personal anecdote demonstrating contrary to their point. \n\n\nJust the other day I saw some post where someone was basically like “I never got any use out of student clubs, therefore they are of no good to anybody, and should be banned.” There were immediately countless other people chiming in with their equally anecdotal stories that they saw great benefit from clubs at schools, so clearly OP is objectively wrong, and it should be an open and shut case, but the person wouldn’t change their view. Eventually they awarded a delta on some minor technicality, but I had jumped in to the convo after the delta had been awarded, and they were still rigidly holding on to their original view. Which brings me to my next point:\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. It feels like a loophole that often gets exploited so people can soapbox. Again, don’t know what can be done, but it’s annoying nonetheless\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting. Paragraphs exist for a reason, and it’s really annoying when the OP is this MASSIVE wall of text with no paragraph breaks.\n\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting. I know that y’all have no control over it, but in my opinion, downvoting is meant to be used to filter out spam and obvious trolls. \n\n\nBut in my experience the Reddit hive mind loves to just pound on the downvote button simply because someone disagrees with them, and once a comment has a couple of negative points, the Reddit hive mind loves to gang up on a slightly downvoted comment and downvote it into oblivion, until it eventually gets hidden. In a place that is supposed to be about open, rational and civil discourse, it’s frankly disrespectful. Again, I know that you have no control over it, but there are some subs that do have sticky messages discouraging downvoting precisely for this reason.\nThose are just some thoughts, and mostly just me venting. I understand that y’all don’t get paid, and I appreciate the work that you do.", ">\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. \n\nReport those for Rule B. A minor technicality delta isn't protection from a Rule B removal. We often do remove posts that try to protect against removal using deltas like this.\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\n\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting.\n\nNo one reads stickies and no matter what we try, Redditors won't use downvotes correctly. We'd disable them entirely if we could, but Reddit won't let us.", ">\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nSure there is, make some rules about formatting and take down posts that don't follow them. Plenty of other subs manage it just fine.", ">\n\nI mean, we do have rules about formatting, but those are 100% objective. Rule A requires 500+ characters, while Rule C requires the title to begin with “CMV:”. I’m not sure how to make such a rule for paragraphs that either could be automated or wouldn’t be time-consuming to moderate. What is your suggestion?", ">\n\nI don't personally moderate any subreddits and I am not familiar with the tools available to do so. Perhaps you could reach out to the moderators of other subreddits that do have post formatting requirements to determine what strategies they use to enforce them. \nr/HobbyDrama is fairly strict that your post must be pretty comprehensive, they may be able to offer advice. I'm sure others would have some ideas. \nI would also break views down into 3 categories: philosophical views, preferential views and views regarding objective facts. \nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts and follow some rules so you let shit fester on the front page, making it clear shit posts are acceptable.", ">\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people. It's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. Friction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. Forcing people to decide which of three categories their view falls into and then following a set of rules based on that category feels like bad friction.\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. Opening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.", ">\n\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people.\n\nIt is reasonable to expect people to follow rules to engage in a useful service \n\nIt's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\n\nBut when we don't understand what someone believes or why we can't do that. \n\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. \n\nThis is actually a good thing since you have repeatedly stated you don't have adequate moderation resources. \n\nFriction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. \n\nPeople that are open minded will read the rules and if there post is taken down will follow the instructions to repost it. \n\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. \n\nThen they frankly weren't that open to it in the first place. \n\nOpening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI'd say 40% plus of posts never open up to critique, they are feels over realz garbage. They not only waste time they make other posts worse by making this a place where garbage is accepted. \n\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.\n\nSometimes you need to make sacrifices to actually accomplish that mission rather than be a platform for misinformation. I would actually argue this subreddit damages the world right now.", ">\n\n\"Fresh Friday\" should start around US east coast morning because the sub is just completely dead each friday until 3pm in central european time.\n(obviously it won't make the sub super active but at least there could be one or two CMV)", ">\n\nOh good, I'm not the only one thinking that. \nLike they said, we are lucky to get a post or two before noon time EST.", ">\n\nHas there been any thought of a sort of automod post on the most common repeated topics? Or a sticky post/wiki with \"common CMV subjects\" for people to read through?\nIt gets tiring for the regular visitors here to repeatedly see the same topics posted, when they've been discussed to death and this new post has nothing different about the last one.\nA sort of \"This appears to be a commonly discussed subject, please check out these other similar CMV's where the OP's view was changed.\" Something to hopefully encourage folks to look at the common arguments and either rethink their own position or realize how their view is different and provide a more interesting/different take on the subject?", ">\n\nThose are already posted when someone submits a thread on a common topic. \nWe don't remove the thread, as we see CMVs as personal to the OP, but we do let them know that other threads exist touching on the subject.", ">\n\nAlthough this has been brought up before, block abuse is still a problem. People, especially OP, using blocks in response to good faith participation (usually in response to an argument they can't respond to or pressing a question they can't answer) is not healthy for this subreddit.", ">\n\nWe know. There is nothing we can do about it. I've begged the Admins for better tools to address the problem but have gotten no response.", ">\n\nCan you do nothing even when there are multiple users reporting they have been blocked and when the blocker is explicit about having blocked people? I didn't think this problem was so bad until a current CMV post when multiple people said they had been blocked by the same user who then (according to the OP) also blocked the OP.", ">\n\nWe have a long standing policy that we don't act on things we can't personally verify as true. This isn't to say that we don't trust you specifically, but people do lie; I've had people submit photoshopped screencaps to try and get people banned (the idiot photoshopped me without realizing I was a mod, so that didn't work out great for them). If we can't see it with our own eyes, we don't take action.\nIf we start taking a user's word for something, it becomes far too easy to weaponize and exploit.", ">\n\nIf a user is saying they have blocked people in their own public comments, does this not qualify as something you can personally verify as true?", ">\n\nIf the user themselves says that they blocked another user, then yes, we will take that into account. We remove comments like that for Rule 3.", ">\n\nOkay: I will report the instance I am aware of for a rule 3 violation. Thanks.", ">\n\nI feel like there should be some sort of rule where an OP has to read some basic information about gender-related issues before posting about them, so often there are CMVs about gender topics that could have their view changed by a 20 second google. It would be nice if the OPs posting about gender had at least a basic awareness of what happens.\nFor example, today there was a post about teens transitioning and the OP had no idea puberty blockers even existed", ">\n\nNot everyone has a rational basis for what they believe. If you can educate them by providing evidence that they didn't know was out there, isn't that a good thing?", ">\n\nout of curiosity, what changes have been put into place because of this bimonthly feedback here if any?\nI'm also curious what could be done about threads that have hundreds of replies, and an OP who is clearly there and responding, and then the thread just goes away because \"You must demonstrate you are open to the view changing\".\nWhat criteria is ever used for demonstrating this? Perhaps when a thread is hundreds of replies deep, there must clearly be a reason for the removal, not just a 'vibe'... why not at least put that reason in there instead of just removing and saying \"Rule 2\"?", ">\n\n\nwhat changes have been put into place because of this bimonthly feedback here if any?\n\nThere have been a few. Off the top of my head, we've made adjustments to how we handle the influx of gender-related posts and the Rule B pre-removal message is a direct result of suggestions here.\nThe problem is that we don't get a ton of actionable feedback from folks. People either ask for things that fundamentally change what CMV is (which we won't do) or things that aren't realistically possible (due to Reddit limitations or lack of developers for custom bots).\nWe have these threads because we want to listen, but not every suggestion is something we'll accept.\n\nWhat criteria is ever used for demonstrating this?\n\nThe Rule B wiki has a very long list of the criteria we use to evaluate that rule.\n\nwhy not at least put that reason in there\n\nWe'd like to do that, but we simply don't have the manpower to go through and provide specific examples for every removal. Frankly, we already struggle to keep up with the workload here, so anything that increases that workload isn't something we can consider until we get a significant number of moderators.", ">\n\n\nOff the top of my head, we've made adjustments to how we handle the influx of gender-related posts\n\nCan you expand on this? What adjustments have been made?\nI used to really enjoy this subreddit, but have lately been feeling that the constant posts about gender (which inevitably are either pushing some hateful rhetoric or get filled up with it in the comments) have been taxing on my mental state and I've had to begin avoiding coming here all together.", ">\n\nWe limit posts on gender-related topics to a single active post per day. Trust me, there are a lot more that try to get through that we stop. We don't get them all (sometimes one gets through that we don't see) but I'd guess that we end up pulling 2/3 of the gender stuff that gets posted. We are also much more heavily policing off-topic gender rants in posts not about that topic (under Rule 5).\nI get that it is taxing, but one of our core values is that we, as the moderation team, don't decide what views are off-limits. We won't ban a topic entirely (save the few that are listed in Rule D) so there will always be gender-related posts here.", ">\n\nOut of curiosity, why is the most recent post perma locked? I noticed it’s locked with loads is disinformation still up within the post, and since it’s locked it’s upvotes have increased 25%, leaving it as the number one post for days. How does leaving this locked topic with loads of disinformation at the top of your sub help improve its function?", ">\n\nThere are hundreds of reports we are still trying to evaluate and clean up. The number of rule violations was overwhelming our team, so we had to pause it until we can get it back under control." ]
> Our stance is that it is not up to us as the moderation team to determine what is or is not the misinformation. That is up to the users in the individual threads. We are forced to lock maybe one post a month because we are overwhelmed. It isn't a significant problem in our eyes.	[ "So first off, I realize there’s probably not much that can be done about this, so this mostly me just venting.\nBut theres several common occurrences on this sub that I frequently see that rub me the wrong way:\n\n\nThe personal therapy posts. I’ve always felt that this sub is supposed to be about changing peoples views they have about some aspect of how the world works. But there are a lot of posts where it’s clearly people just looking for some kind of therapy/validation for their personal situation. “Change my view that my life doesn’t suck” or stuff that’s more meant for an r/AmITheAsshole kind of sub.\n\n\nThe broad stroke generalizations based solely on personal anecdotes. I’ve also seen a lot of posts where someone will make an incredibly broad stroke generalization based on their single data point personal anecdote, and all it would reasonably take to change their view and prove them wrong is someone else’s personal anecdote demonstrating contrary to their point. \n\n\nJust the other day I saw some post where someone was basically like “I never got any use out of student clubs, therefore they are of no good to anybody, and should be banned.” There were immediately countless other people chiming in with their equally anecdotal stories that they saw great benefit from clubs at schools, so clearly OP is objectively wrong, and it should be an open and shut case, but the person wouldn’t change their view. Eventually they awarded a delta on some minor technicality, but I had jumped in to the convo after the delta had been awarded, and they were still rigidly holding on to their original view. Which brings me to my next point:\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. It feels like a loophole that often gets exploited so people can soapbox. Again, don’t know what can be done, but it’s annoying nonetheless\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting. Paragraphs exist for a reason, and it’s really annoying when the OP is this MASSIVE wall of text with no paragraph breaks.\n\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting. I know that y’all have no control over it, but in my opinion, downvoting is meant to be used to filter out spam and obvious trolls. \n\n\nBut in my experience the Reddit hive mind loves to just pound on the downvote button simply because someone disagrees with them, and once a comment has a couple of negative points, the Reddit hive mind loves to gang up on a slightly downvoted comment and downvote it into oblivion, until it eventually gets hidden. In a place that is supposed to be about open, rational and civil discourse, it’s frankly disrespectful. Again, I know that you have no control over it, but there are some subs that do have sticky messages discouraging downvoting precisely for this reason.\nThose are just some thoughts, and mostly just me venting. I understand that y’all don’t get paid, and I appreciate the work that you do.", ">\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. \n\nReport those for Rule B. A minor technicality delta isn't protection from a Rule B removal. We often do remove posts that try to protect against removal using deltas like this.\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\n\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting.\n\nNo one reads stickies and no matter what we try, Redditors won't use downvotes correctly. We'd disable them entirely if we could, but Reddit won't let us.", ">\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nSure there is, make some rules about formatting and take down posts that don't follow them. Plenty of other subs manage it just fine.", ">\n\nI mean, we do have rules about formatting, but those are 100% objective. Rule A requires 500+ characters, while Rule C requires the title to begin with “CMV:”. I’m not sure how to make such a rule for paragraphs that either could be automated or wouldn’t be time-consuming to moderate. What is your suggestion?", ">\n\nI don't personally moderate any subreddits and I am not familiar with the tools available to do so. Perhaps you could reach out to the moderators of other subreddits that do have post formatting requirements to determine what strategies they use to enforce them. \nr/HobbyDrama is fairly strict that your post must be pretty comprehensive, they may be able to offer advice. I'm sure others would have some ideas. \nI would also break views down into 3 categories: philosophical views, preferential views and views regarding objective facts. \nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts and follow some rules so you let shit fester on the front page, making it clear shit posts are acceptable.", ">\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people. It's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. Friction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. Forcing people to decide which of three categories their view falls into and then following a set of rules based on that category feels like bad friction.\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. Opening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.", ">\n\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people.\n\nIt is reasonable to expect people to follow rules to engage in a useful service \n\nIt's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\n\nBut when we don't understand what someone believes or why we can't do that. \n\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. \n\nThis is actually a good thing since you have repeatedly stated you don't have adequate moderation resources. \n\nFriction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. \n\nPeople that are open minded will read the rules and if there post is taken down will follow the instructions to repost it. \n\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. \n\nThen they frankly weren't that open to it in the first place. \n\nOpening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI'd say 40% plus of posts never open up to critique, they are feels over realz garbage. They not only waste time they make other posts worse by making this a place where garbage is accepted. \n\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.\n\nSometimes you need to make sacrifices to actually accomplish that mission rather than be a platform for misinformation. I would actually argue this subreddit damages the world right now.", ">\n\n\"Fresh Friday\" should start around US east coast morning because the sub is just completely dead each friday until 3pm in central european time.\n(obviously it won't make the sub super active but at least there could be one or two CMV)", ">\n\nOh good, I'm not the only one thinking that. \nLike they said, we are lucky to get a post or two before noon time EST.", ">\n\nHas there been any thought of a sort of automod post on the most common repeated topics? Or a sticky post/wiki with \"common CMV subjects\" for people to read through?\nIt gets tiring for the regular visitors here to repeatedly see the same topics posted, when they've been discussed to death and this new post has nothing different about the last one.\nA sort of \"This appears to be a commonly discussed subject, please check out these other similar CMV's where the OP's view was changed.\" Something to hopefully encourage folks to look at the common arguments and either rethink their own position or realize how their view is different and provide a more interesting/different take on the subject?", ">\n\nThose are already posted when someone submits a thread on a common topic. \nWe don't remove the thread, as we see CMVs as personal to the OP, but we do let them know that other threads exist touching on the subject.", ">\n\nAlthough this has been brought up before, block abuse is still a problem. People, especially OP, using blocks in response to good faith participation (usually in response to an argument they can't respond to or pressing a question they can't answer) is not healthy for this subreddit.", ">\n\nWe know. There is nothing we can do about it. I've begged the Admins for better tools to address the problem but have gotten no response.", ">\n\nCan you do nothing even when there are multiple users reporting they have been blocked and when the blocker is explicit about having blocked people? I didn't think this problem was so bad until a current CMV post when multiple people said they had been blocked by the same user who then (according to the OP) also blocked the OP.", ">\n\nWe have a long standing policy that we don't act on things we can't personally verify as true. This isn't to say that we don't trust you specifically, but people do lie; I've had people submit photoshopped screencaps to try and get people banned (the idiot photoshopped me without realizing I was a mod, so that didn't work out great for them). If we can't see it with our own eyes, we don't take action.\nIf we start taking a user's word for something, it becomes far too easy to weaponize and exploit.", ">\n\nIf a user is saying they have blocked people in their own public comments, does this not qualify as something you can personally verify as true?", ">\n\nIf the user themselves says that they blocked another user, then yes, we will take that into account. We remove comments like that for Rule 3.", ">\n\nOkay: I will report the instance I am aware of for a rule 3 violation. Thanks.", ">\n\nI feel like there should be some sort of rule where an OP has to read some basic information about gender-related issues before posting about them, so often there are CMVs about gender topics that could have their view changed by a 20 second google. It would be nice if the OPs posting about gender had at least a basic awareness of what happens.\nFor example, today there was a post about teens transitioning and the OP had no idea puberty blockers even existed", ">\n\nNot everyone has a rational basis for what they believe. If you can educate them by providing evidence that they didn't know was out there, isn't that a good thing?", ">\n\nout of curiosity, what changes have been put into place because of this bimonthly feedback here if any?\nI'm also curious what could be done about threads that have hundreds of replies, and an OP who is clearly there and responding, and then the thread just goes away because \"You must demonstrate you are open to the view changing\".\nWhat criteria is ever used for demonstrating this? Perhaps when a thread is hundreds of replies deep, there must clearly be a reason for the removal, not just a 'vibe'... why not at least put that reason in there instead of just removing and saying \"Rule 2\"?", ">\n\n\nwhat changes have been put into place because of this bimonthly feedback here if any?\n\nThere have been a few. Off the top of my head, we've made adjustments to how we handle the influx of gender-related posts and the Rule B pre-removal message is a direct result of suggestions here.\nThe problem is that we don't get a ton of actionable feedback from folks. People either ask for things that fundamentally change what CMV is (which we won't do) or things that aren't realistically possible (due to Reddit limitations or lack of developers for custom bots).\nWe have these threads because we want to listen, but not every suggestion is something we'll accept.\n\nWhat criteria is ever used for demonstrating this?\n\nThe Rule B wiki has a very long list of the criteria we use to evaluate that rule.\n\nwhy not at least put that reason in there\n\nWe'd like to do that, but we simply don't have the manpower to go through and provide specific examples for every removal. Frankly, we already struggle to keep up with the workload here, so anything that increases that workload isn't something we can consider until we get a significant number of moderators.", ">\n\n\nOff the top of my head, we've made adjustments to how we handle the influx of gender-related posts\n\nCan you expand on this? What adjustments have been made?\nI used to really enjoy this subreddit, but have lately been feeling that the constant posts about gender (which inevitably are either pushing some hateful rhetoric or get filled up with it in the comments) have been taxing on my mental state and I've had to begin avoiding coming here all together.", ">\n\nWe limit posts on gender-related topics to a single active post per day. Trust me, there are a lot more that try to get through that we stop. We don't get them all (sometimes one gets through that we don't see) but I'd guess that we end up pulling 2/3 of the gender stuff that gets posted. We are also much more heavily policing off-topic gender rants in posts not about that topic (under Rule 5).\nI get that it is taxing, but one of our core values is that we, as the moderation team, don't decide what views are off-limits. We won't ban a topic entirely (save the few that are listed in Rule D) so there will always be gender-related posts here.", ">\n\nOut of curiosity, why is the most recent post perma locked? I noticed it’s locked with loads is disinformation still up within the post, and since it’s locked it’s upvotes have increased 25%, leaving it as the number one post for days. How does leaving this locked topic with loads of disinformation at the top of your sub help improve its function?", ">\n\nThere are hundreds of reports we are still trying to evaluate and clean up. The number of rule violations was overwhelming our team, so we had to pause it until we can get it back under control.", ">\n\nDo you think it’s working that you are upholding your ideas of a CMV sub and people come in here spreading more disinformation than you can handle? To the point where you have to leave it up, exposing untold numbers of visitors to said disinformation? It appears to me that this sub is very prone to the social media version of ‘the Gish gallop’." ]
> Why isn't it up to you? Someone says something which is verifiably wrong, proven by research, and you don't have the ability to declare that disinformation? There's a very clear difference between misinformation and disinformation, and I would suggest that your sub has a massive issue with the second moreso than the first. How does it improve your sub to have a mod team which is so hands off that you allow people to spread straight lies?	[ "So first off, I realize there’s probably not much that can be done about this, so this mostly me just venting.\nBut theres several common occurrences on this sub that I frequently see that rub me the wrong way:\n\n\nThe personal therapy posts. I’ve always felt that this sub is supposed to be about changing peoples views they have about some aspect of how the world works. But there are a lot of posts where it’s clearly people just looking for some kind of therapy/validation for their personal situation. “Change my view that my life doesn’t suck” or stuff that’s more meant for an r/AmITheAsshole kind of sub.\n\n\nThe broad stroke generalizations based solely on personal anecdotes. I’ve also seen a lot of posts where someone will make an incredibly broad stroke generalization based on their single data point personal anecdote, and all it would reasonably take to change their view and prove them wrong is someone else’s personal anecdote demonstrating contrary to their point. \n\n\nJust the other day I saw some post where someone was basically like “I never got any use out of student clubs, therefore they are of no good to anybody, and should be banned.” There were immediately countless other people chiming in with their equally anecdotal stories that they saw great benefit from clubs at schools, so clearly OP is objectively wrong, and it should be an open and shut case, but the person wouldn’t change their view. Eventually they awarded a delta on some minor technicality, but I had jumped in to the convo after the delta had been awarded, and they were still rigidly holding on to their original view. Which brings me to my next point:\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. It feels like a loophole that often gets exploited so people can soapbox. Again, don’t know what can be done, but it’s annoying nonetheless\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting. Paragraphs exist for a reason, and it’s really annoying when the OP is this MASSIVE wall of text with no paragraph breaks.\n\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting. I know that y’all have no control over it, but in my opinion, downvoting is meant to be used to filter out spam and obvious trolls. \n\n\nBut in my experience the Reddit hive mind loves to just pound on the downvote button simply because someone disagrees with them, and once a comment has a couple of negative points, the Reddit hive mind loves to gang up on a slightly downvoted comment and downvote it into oblivion, until it eventually gets hidden. In a place that is supposed to be about open, rational and civil discourse, it’s frankly disrespectful. Again, I know that you have no control over it, but there are some subs that do have sticky messages discouraging downvoting precisely for this reason.\nThose are just some thoughts, and mostly just me venting. I understand that y’all don’t get paid, and I appreciate the work that you do.", ">\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. \n\nReport those for Rule B. A minor technicality delta isn't protection from a Rule B removal. We often do remove posts that try to protect against removal using deltas like this.\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\n\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting.\n\nNo one reads stickies and no matter what we try, Redditors won't use downvotes correctly. We'd disable them entirely if we could, but Reddit won't let us.", ">\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nSure there is, make some rules about formatting and take down posts that don't follow them. Plenty of other subs manage it just fine.", ">\n\nI mean, we do have rules about formatting, but those are 100% objective. Rule A requires 500+ characters, while Rule C requires the title to begin with “CMV:”. I’m not sure how to make such a rule for paragraphs that either could be automated or wouldn’t be time-consuming to moderate. What is your suggestion?", ">\n\nI don't personally moderate any subreddits and I am not familiar with the tools available to do so. Perhaps you could reach out to the moderators of other subreddits that do have post formatting requirements to determine what strategies they use to enforce them. \nr/HobbyDrama is fairly strict that your post must be pretty comprehensive, they may be able to offer advice. I'm sure others would have some ideas. \nI would also break views down into 3 categories: philosophical views, preferential views and views regarding objective facts. \nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts and follow some rules so you let shit fester on the front page, making it clear shit posts are acceptable.", ">\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people. It's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. Friction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. Forcing people to decide which of three categories their view falls into and then following a set of rules based on that category feels like bad friction.\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. Opening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.", ">\n\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people.\n\nIt is reasonable to expect people to follow rules to engage in a useful service \n\nIt's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\n\nBut when we don't understand what someone believes or why we can't do that. \n\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. \n\nThis is actually a good thing since you have repeatedly stated you don't have adequate moderation resources. \n\nFriction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. \n\nPeople that are open minded will read the rules and if there post is taken down will follow the instructions to repost it. \n\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. \n\nThen they frankly weren't that open to it in the first place. \n\nOpening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI'd say 40% plus of posts never open up to critique, they are feels over realz garbage. They not only waste time they make other posts worse by making this a place where garbage is accepted. \n\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.\n\nSometimes you need to make sacrifices to actually accomplish that mission rather than be a platform for misinformation. I would actually argue this subreddit damages the world right now.", ">\n\n\"Fresh Friday\" should start around US east coast morning because the sub is just completely dead each friday until 3pm in central european time.\n(obviously it won't make the sub super active but at least there could be one or two CMV)", ">\n\nOh good, I'm not the only one thinking that. \nLike they said, we are lucky to get a post or two before noon time EST.", ">\n\nHas there been any thought of a sort of automod post on the most common repeated topics? Or a sticky post/wiki with \"common CMV subjects\" for people to read through?\nIt gets tiring for the regular visitors here to repeatedly see the same topics posted, when they've been discussed to death and this new post has nothing different about the last one.\nA sort of \"This appears to be a commonly discussed subject, please check out these other similar CMV's where the OP's view was changed.\" Something to hopefully encourage folks to look at the common arguments and either rethink their own position or realize how their view is different and provide a more interesting/different take on the subject?", ">\n\nThose are already posted when someone submits a thread on a common topic. \nWe don't remove the thread, as we see CMVs as personal to the OP, but we do let them know that other threads exist touching on the subject.", ">\n\nAlthough this has been brought up before, block abuse is still a problem. People, especially OP, using blocks in response to good faith participation (usually in response to an argument they can't respond to or pressing a question they can't answer) is not healthy for this subreddit.", ">\n\nWe know. There is nothing we can do about it. I've begged the Admins for better tools to address the problem but have gotten no response.", ">\n\nCan you do nothing even when there are multiple users reporting they have been blocked and when the blocker is explicit about having blocked people? I didn't think this problem was so bad until a current CMV post when multiple people said they had been blocked by the same user who then (according to the OP) also blocked the OP.", ">\n\nWe have a long standing policy that we don't act on things we can't personally verify as true. This isn't to say that we don't trust you specifically, but people do lie; I've had people submit photoshopped screencaps to try and get people banned (the idiot photoshopped me without realizing I was a mod, so that didn't work out great for them). If we can't see it with our own eyes, we don't take action.\nIf we start taking a user's word for something, it becomes far too easy to weaponize and exploit.", ">\n\nIf a user is saying they have blocked people in their own public comments, does this not qualify as something you can personally verify as true?", ">\n\nIf the user themselves says that they blocked another user, then yes, we will take that into account. We remove comments like that for Rule 3.", ">\n\nOkay: I will report the instance I am aware of for a rule 3 violation. Thanks.", ">\n\nI feel like there should be some sort of rule where an OP has to read some basic information about gender-related issues before posting about them, so often there are CMVs about gender topics that could have their view changed by a 20 second google. It would be nice if the OPs posting about gender had at least a basic awareness of what happens.\nFor example, today there was a post about teens transitioning and the OP had no idea puberty blockers even existed", ">\n\nNot everyone has a rational basis for what they believe. If you can educate them by providing evidence that they didn't know was out there, isn't that a good thing?", ">\n\nout of curiosity, what changes have been put into place because of this bimonthly feedback here if any?\nI'm also curious what could be done about threads that have hundreds of replies, and an OP who is clearly there and responding, and then the thread just goes away because \"You must demonstrate you are open to the view changing\".\nWhat criteria is ever used for demonstrating this? Perhaps when a thread is hundreds of replies deep, there must clearly be a reason for the removal, not just a 'vibe'... why not at least put that reason in there instead of just removing and saying \"Rule 2\"?", ">\n\n\nwhat changes have been put into place because of this bimonthly feedback here if any?\n\nThere have been a few. Off the top of my head, we've made adjustments to how we handle the influx of gender-related posts and the Rule B pre-removal message is a direct result of suggestions here.\nThe problem is that we don't get a ton of actionable feedback from folks. People either ask for things that fundamentally change what CMV is (which we won't do) or things that aren't realistically possible (due to Reddit limitations or lack of developers for custom bots).\nWe have these threads because we want to listen, but not every suggestion is something we'll accept.\n\nWhat criteria is ever used for demonstrating this?\n\nThe Rule B wiki has a very long list of the criteria we use to evaluate that rule.\n\nwhy not at least put that reason in there\n\nWe'd like to do that, but we simply don't have the manpower to go through and provide specific examples for every removal. Frankly, we already struggle to keep up with the workload here, so anything that increases that workload isn't something we can consider until we get a significant number of moderators.", ">\n\n\nOff the top of my head, we've made adjustments to how we handle the influx of gender-related posts\n\nCan you expand on this? What adjustments have been made?\nI used to really enjoy this subreddit, but have lately been feeling that the constant posts about gender (which inevitably are either pushing some hateful rhetoric or get filled up with it in the comments) have been taxing on my mental state and I've had to begin avoiding coming here all together.", ">\n\nWe limit posts on gender-related topics to a single active post per day. Trust me, there are a lot more that try to get through that we stop. We don't get them all (sometimes one gets through that we don't see) but I'd guess that we end up pulling 2/3 of the gender stuff that gets posted. We are also much more heavily policing off-topic gender rants in posts not about that topic (under Rule 5).\nI get that it is taxing, but one of our core values is that we, as the moderation team, don't decide what views are off-limits. We won't ban a topic entirely (save the few that are listed in Rule D) so there will always be gender-related posts here.", ">\n\nOut of curiosity, why is the most recent post perma locked? I noticed it’s locked with loads is disinformation still up within the post, and since it’s locked it’s upvotes have increased 25%, leaving it as the number one post for days. How does leaving this locked topic with loads of disinformation at the top of your sub help improve its function?", ">\n\nThere are hundreds of reports we are still trying to evaluate and clean up. The number of rule violations was overwhelming our team, so we had to pause it until we can get it back under control.", ">\n\nDo you think it’s working that you are upholding your ideas of a CMV sub and people come in here spreading more disinformation than you can handle? To the point where you have to leave it up, exposing untold numbers of visitors to said disinformation? It appears to me that this sub is very prone to the social media version of ‘the Gish gallop’.", ">\n\nOur stance is that it is not up to us as the moderation team to determine what is or is not the misinformation. That is up to the users in the individual threads.\nWe are forced to lock maybe one post a month because we are overwhelmed. It isn't a significant problem in our eyes." ]
> Our ethos is that moderators are not the arbiters of truth. We don't decide what views are right or wrong - this isn't our role. Our role is to keep things civil and on topic; its the role of our users to argue the information presented in threads. This is a foundational principle of CMV and isn't going to change.	[ "So first off, I realize there’s probably not much that can be done about this, so this mostly me just venting.\nBut theres several common occurrences on this sub that I frequently see that rub me the wrong way:\n\n\nThe personal therapy posts. I’ve always felt that this sub is supposed to be about changing peoples views they have about some aspect of how the world works. But there are a lot of posts where it’s clearly people just looking for some kind of therapy/validation for their personal situation. “Change my view that my life doesn’t suck” or stuff that’s more meant for an r/AmITheAsshole kind of sub.\n\n\nThe broad stroke generalizations based solely on personal anecdotes. I’ve also seen a lot of posts where someone will make an incredibly broad stroke generalization based on their single data point personal anecdote, and all it would reasonably take to change their view and prove them wrong is someone else’s personal anecdote demonstrating contrary to their point. \n\n\nJust the other day I saw some post where someone was basically like “I never got any use out of student clubs, therefore they are of no good to anybody, and should be banned.” There were immediately countless other people chiming in with their equally anecdotal stories that they saw great benefit from clubs at schools, so clearly OP is objectively wrong, and it should be an open and shut case, but the person wouldn’t change their view. Eventually they awarded a delta on some minor technicality, but I had jumped in to the convo after the delta had been awarded, and they were still rigidly holding on to their original view. Which brings me to my next point:\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. It feels like a loophole that often gets exploited so people can soapbox. Again, don’t know what can be done, but it’s annoying nonetheless\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting. Paragraphs exist for a reason, and it’s really annoying when the OP is this MASSIVE wall of text with no paragraph breaks.\n\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting. I know that y’all have no control over it, but in my opinion, downvoting is meant to be used to filter out spam and obvious trolls. \n\n\nBut in my experience the Reddit hive mind loves to just pound on the downvote button simply because someone disagrees with them, and once a comment has a couple of negative points, the Reddit hive mind loves to gang up on a slightly downvoted comment and downvote it into oblivion, until it eventually gets hidden. In a place that is supposed to be about open, rational and civil discourse, it’s frankly disrespectful. Again, I know that you have no control over it, but there are some subs that do have sticky messages discouraging downvoting precisely for this reason.\nThose are just some thoughts, and mostly just me venting. I understand that y’all don’t get paid, and I appreciate the work that you do.", ">\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. \n\nReport those for Rule B. A minor technicality delta isn't protection from a Rule B removal. We often do remove posts that try to protect against removal using deltas like this.\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\n\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting.\n\nNo one reads stickies and no matter what we try, Redditors won't use downvotes correctly. We'd disable them entirely if we could, but Reddit won't let us.", ">\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nSure there is, make some rules about formatting and take down posts that don't follow them. Plenty of other subs manage it just fine.", ">\n\nI mean, we do have rules about formatting, but those are 100% objective. Rule A requires 500+ characters, while Rule C requires the title to begin with “CMV:”. I’m not sure how to make such a rule for paragraphs that either could be automated or wouldn’t be time-consuming to moderate. What is your suggestion?", ">\n\nI don't personally moderate any subreddits and I am not familiar with the tools available to do so. Perhaps you could reach out to the moderators of other subreddits that do have post formatting requirements to determine what strategies they use to enforce them. \nr/HobbyDrama is fairly strict that your post must be pretty comprehensive, they may be able to offer advice. I'm sure others would have some ideas. \nI would also break views down into 3 categories: philosophical views, preferential views and views regarding objective facts. \nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts and follow some rules so you let shit fester on the front page, making it clear shit posts are acceptable.", ">\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people. It's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. Friction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. Forcing people to decide which of three categories their view falls into and then following a set of rules based on that category feels like bad friction.\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. Opening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.", ">\n\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people.\n\nIt is reasonable to expect people to follow rules to engage in a useful service \n\nIt's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\n\nBut when we don't understand what someone believes or why we can't do that. \n\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. \n\nThis is actually a good thing since you have repeatedly stated you don't have adequate moderation resources. \n\nFriction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. \n\nPeople that are open minded will read the rules and if there post is taken down will follow the instructions to repost it. \n\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. \n\nThen they frankly weren't that open to it in the first place. \n\nOpening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI'd say 40% plus of posts never open up to critique, they are feels over realz garbage. They not only waste time they make other posts worse by making this a place where garbage is accepted. \n\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.\n\nSometimes you need to make sacrifices to actually accomplish that mission rather than be a platform for misinformation. I would actually argue this subreddit damages the world right now.", ">\n\n\"Fresh Friday\" should start around US east coast morning because the sub is just completely dead each friday until 3pm in central european time.\n(obviously it won't make the sub super active but at least there could be one or two CMV)", ">\n\nOh good, I'm not the only one thinking that. \nLike they said, we are lucky to get a post or two before noon time EST.", ">\n\nHas there been any thought of a sort of automod post on the most common repeated topics? Or a sticky post/wiki with \"common CMV subjects\" for people to read through?\nIt gets tiring for the regular visitors here to repeatedly see the same topics posted, when they've been discussed to death and this new post has nothing different about the last one.\nA sort of \"This appears to be a commonly discussed subject, please check out these other similar CMV's where the OP's view was changed.\" Something to hopefully encourage folks to look at the common arguments and either rethink their own position or realize how their view is different and provide a more interesting/different take on the subject?", ">\n\nThose are already posted when someone submits a thread on a common topic. \nWe don't remove the thread, as we see CMVs as personal to the OP, but we do let them know that other threads exist touching on the subject.", ">\n\nAlthough this has been brought up before, block abuse is still a problem. People, especially OP, using blocks in response to good faith participation (usually in response to an argument they can't respond to or pressing a question they can't answer) is not healthy for this subreddit.", ">\n\nWe know. There is nothing we can do about it. I've begged the Admins for better tools to address the problem but have gotten no response.", ">\n\nCan you do nothing even when there are multiple users reporting they have been blocked and when the blocker is explicit about having blocked people? I didn't think this problem was so bad until a current CMV post when multiple people said they had been blocked by the same user who then (according to the OP) also blocked the OP.", ">\n\nWe have a long standing policy that we don't act on things we can't personally verify as true. This isn't to say that we don't trust you specifically, but people do lie; I've had people submit photoshopped screencaps to try and get people banned (the idiot photoshopped me without realizing I was a mod, so that didn't work out great for them). If we can't see it with our own eyes, we don't take action.\nIf we start taking a user's word for something, it becomes far too easy to weaponize and exploit.", ">\n\nIf a user is saying they have blocked people in their own public comments, does this not qualify as something you can personally verify as true?", ">\n\nIf the user themselves says that they blocked another user, then yes, we will take that into account. We remove comments like that for Rule 3.", ">\n\nOkay: I will report the instance I am aware of for a rule 3 violation. Thanks.", ">\n\nI feel like there should be some sort of rule where an OP has to read some basic information about gender-related issues before posting about them, so often there are CMVs about gender topics that could have their view changed by a 20 second google. It would be nice if the OPs posting about gender had at least a basic awareness of what happens.\nFor example, today there was a post about teens transitioning and the OP had no idea puberty blockers even existed", ">\n\nNot everyone has a rational basis for what they believe. If you can educate them by providing evidence that they didn't know was out there, isn't that a good thing?", ">\n\nout of curiosity, what changes have been put into place because of this bimonthly feedback here if any?\nI'm also curious what could be done about threads that have hundreds of replies, and an OP who is clearly there and responding, and then the thread just goes away because \"You must demonstrate you are open to the view changing\".\nWhat criteria is ever used for demonstrating this? Perhaps when a thread is hundreds of replies deep, there must clearly be a reason for the removal, not just a 'vibe'... why not at least put that reason in there instead of just removing and saying \"Rule 2\"?", ">\n\n\nwhat changes have been put into place because of this bimonthly feedback here if any?\n\nThere have been a few. Off the top of my head, we've made adjustments to how we handle the influx of gender-related posts and the Rule B pre-removal message is a direct result of suggestions here.\nThe problem is that we don't get a ton of actionable feedback from folks. People either ask for things that fundamentally change what CMV is (which we won't do) or things that aren't realistically possible (due to Reddit limitations or lack of developers for custom bots).\nWe have these threads because we want to listen, but not every suggestion is something we'll accept.\n\nWhat criteria is ever used for demonstrating this?\n\nThe Rule B wiki has a very long list of the criteria we use to evaluate that rule.\n\nwhy not at least put that reason in there\n\nWe'd like to do that, but we simply don't have the manpower to go through and provide specific examples for every removal. Frankly, we already struggle to keep up with the workload here, so anything that increases that workload isn't something we can consider until we get a significant number of moderators.", ">\n\n\nOff the top of my head, we've made adjustments to how we handle the influx of gender-related posts\n\nCan you expand on this? What adjustments have been made?\nI used to really enjoy this subreddit, but have lately been feeling that the constant posts about gender (which inevitably are either pushing some hateful rhetoric or get filled up with it in the comments) have been taxing on my mental state and I've had to begin avoiding coming here all together.", ">\n\nWe limit posts on gender-related topics to a single active post per day. Trust me, there are a lot more that try to get through that we stop. We don't get them all (sometimes one gets through that we don't see) but I'd guess that we end up pulling 2/3 of the gender stuff that gets posted. We are also much more heavily policing off-topic gender rants in posts not about that topic (under Rule 5).\nI get that it is taxing, but one of our core values is that we, as the moderation team, don't decide what views are off-limits. We won't ban a topic entirely (save the few that are listed in Rule D) so there will always be gender-related posts here.", ">\n\nOut of curiosity, why is the most recent post perma locked? I noticed it’s locked with loads is disinformation still up within the post, and since it’s locked it’s upvotes have increased 25%, leaving it as the number one post for days. How does leaving this locked topic with loads of disinformation at the top of your sub help improve its function?", ">\n\nThere are hundreds of reports we are still trying to evaluate and clean up. The number of rule violations was overwhelming our team, so we had to pause it until we can get it back under control.", ">\n\nDo you think it’s working that you are upholding your ideas of a CMV sub and people come in here spreading more disinformation than you can handle? To the point where you have to leave it up, exposing untold numbers of visitors to said disinformation? It appears to me that this sub is very prone to the social media version of ‘the Gish gallop’.", ">\n\nOur stance is that it is not up to us as the moderation team to determine what is or is not the misinformation. That is up to the users in the individual threads.\nWe are forced to lock maybe one post a month because we are overwhelmed. It isn't a significant problem in our eyes.", ">\n\nWhy isn't it up to you? Someone says something which is verifiably wrong, proven by research, and you don't have the ability to declare that disinformation? There's a very clear difference between misinformation and disinformation, and I would suggest that your sub has a massive issue with the second moreso than the first. How does it improve your sub to have a mod team which is so hands off that you allow people to spread straight lies?" ]
> Not sure about solutions but it feels like every other post where someone hasn't understood the sub, they see all the posts roasting and dismantling their position and just delete their post rather than award deltas or offer counter arguments. Is it possible to block deletion? Or to have a community system of deltas for people who should have had them but didn't?	[ "So first off, I realize there’s probably not much that can be done about this, so this mostly me just venting.\nBut theres several common occurrences on this sub that I frequently see that rub me the wrong way:\n\n\nThe personal therapy posts. I’ve always felt that this sub is supposed to be about changing peoples views they have about some aspect of how the world works. But there are a lot of posts where it’s clearly people just looking for some kind of therapy/validation for their personal situation. “Change my view that my life doesn’t suck” or stuff that’s more meant for an r/AmITheAsshole kind of sub.\n\n\nThe broad stroke generalizations based solely on personal anecdotes. I’ve also seen a lot of posts where someone will make an incredibly broad stroke generalization based on their single data point personal anecdote, and all it would reasonably take to change their view and prove them wrong is someone else’s personal anecdote demonstrating contrary to their point. \n\n\nJust the other day I saw some post where someone was basically like “I never got any use out of student clubs, therefore they are of no good to anybody, and should be banned.” There were immediately countless other people chiming in with their equally anecdotal stories that they saw great benefit from clubs at schools, so clearly OP is objectively wrong, and it should be an open and shut case, but the person wouldn’t change their view. Eventually they awarded a delta on some minor technicality, but I had jumped in to the convo after the delta had been awarded, and they were still rigidly holding on to their original view. Which brings me to my next point:\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. It feels like a loophole that often gets exploited so people can soapbox. Again, don’t know what can be done, but it’s annoying nonetheless\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting. Paragraphs exist for a reason, and it’s really annoying when the OP is this MASSIVE wall of text with no paragraph breaks.\n\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting. I know that y’all have no control over it, but in my opinion, downvoting is meant to be used to filter out spam and obvious trolls. \n\n\nBut in my experience the Reddit hive mind loves to just pound on the downvote button simply because someone disagrees with them, and once a comment has a couple of negative points, the Reddit hive mind loves to gang up on a slightly downvoted comment and downvote it into oblivion, until it eventually gets hidden. In a place that is supposed to be about open, rational and civil discourse, it’s frankly disrespectful. Again, I know that you have no control over it, but there are some subs that do have sticky messages discouraging downvoting precisely for this reason.\nThose are just some thoughts, and mostly just me venting. I understand that y’all don’t get paid, and I appreciate the work that you do.", ">\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. \n\nReport those for Rule B. A minor technicality delta isn't protection from a Rule B removal. We often do remove posts that try to protect against removal using deltas like this.\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\n\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting.\n\nNo one reads stickies and no matter what we try, Redditors won't use downvotes correctly. We'd disable them entirely if we could, but Reddit won't let us.", ">\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nSure there is, make some rules about formatting and take down posts that don't follow them. Plenty of other subs manage it just fine.", ">\n\nI mean, we do have rules about formatting, but those are 100% objective. Rule A requires 500+ characters, while Rule C requires the title to begin with “CMV:”. I’m not sure how to make such a rule for paragraphs that either could be automated or wouldn’t be time-consuming to moderate. What is your suggestion?", ">\n\nI don't personally moderate any subreddits and I am not familiar with the tools available to do so. Perhaps you could reach out to the moderators of other subreddits that do have post formatting requirements to determine what strategies they use to enforce them. \nr/HobbyDrama is fairly strict that your post must be pretty comprehensive, they may be able to offer advice. I'm sure others would have some ideas. \nI would also break views down into 3 categories: philosophical views, preferential views and views regarding objective facts. \nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts and follow some rules so you let shit fester on the front page, making it clear shit posts are acceptable.", ">\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people. It's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. Friction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. Forcing people to decide which of three categories their view falls into and then following a set of rules based on that category feels like bad friction.\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. Opening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.", ">\n\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people.\n\nIt is reasonable to expect people to follow rules to engage in a useful service \n\nIt's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\n\nBut when we don't understand what someone believes or why we can't do that. \n\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. \n\nThis is actually a good thing since you have repeatedly stated you don't have adequate moderation resources. \n\nFriction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. \n\nPeople that are open minded will read the rules and if there post is taken down will follow the instructions to repost it. \n\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. \n\nThen they frankly weren't that open to it in the first place. \n\nOpening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI'd say 40% plus of posts never open up to critique, they are feels over realz garbage. They not only waste time they make other posts worse by making this a place where garbage is accepted. \n\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.\n\nSometimes you need to make sacrifices to actually accomplish that mission rather than be a platform for misinformation. I would actually argue this subreddit damages the world right now.", ">\n\n\"Fresh Friday\" should start around US east coast morning because the sub is just completely dead each friday until 3pm in central european time.\n(obviously it won't make the sub super active but at least there could be one or two CMV)", ">\n\nOh good, I'm not the only one thinking that. \nLike they said, we are lucky to get a post or two before noon time EST.", ">\n\nHas there been any thought of a sort of automod post on the most common repeated topics? Or a sticky post/wiki with \"common CMV subjects\" for people to read through?\nIt gets tiring for the regular visitors here to repeatedly see the same topics posted, when they've been discussed to death and this new post has nothing different about the last one.\nA sort of \"This appears to be a commonly discussed subject, please check out these other similar CMV's where the OP's view was changed.\" Something to hopefully encourage folks to look at the common arguments and either rethink their own position or realize how their view is different and provide a more interesting/different take on the subject?", ">\n\nThose are already posted when someone submits a thread on a common topic. \nWe don't remove the thread, as we see CMVs as personal to the OP, but we do let them know that other threads exist touching on the subject.", ">\n\nAlthough this has been brought up before, block abuse is still a problem. People, especially OP, using blocks in response to good faith participation (usually in response to an argument they can't respond to or pressing a question they can't answer) is not healthy for this subreddit.", ">\n\nWe know. There is nothing we can do about it. I've begged the Admins for better tools to address the problem but have gotten no response.", ">\n\nCan you do nothing even when there are multiple users reporting they have been blocked and when the blocker is explicit about having blocked people? I didn't think this problem was so bad until a current CMV post when multiple people said they had been blocked by the same user who then (according to the OP) also blocked the OP.", ">\n\nWe have a long standing policy that we don't act on things we can't personally verify as true. This isn't to say that we don't trust you specifically, but people do lie; I've had people submit photoshopped screencaps to try and get people banned (the idiot photoshopped me without realizing I was a mod, so that didn't work out great for them). If we can't see it with our own eyes, we don't take action.\nIf we start taking a user's word for something, it becomes far too easy to weaponize and exploit.", ">\n\nIf a user is saying they have blocked people in their own public comments, does this not qualify as something you can personally verify as true?", ">\n\nIf the user themselves says that they blocked another user, then yes, we will take that into account. We remove comments like that for Rule 3.", ">\n\nOkay: I will report the instance I am aware of for a rule 3 violation. Thanks.", ">\n\nI feel like there should be some sort of rule where an OP has to read some basic information about gender-related issues before posting about them, so often there are CMVs about gender topics that could have their view changed by a 20 second google. It would be nice if the OPs posting about gender had at least a basic awareness of what happens.\nFor example, today there was a post about teens transitioning and the OP had no idea puberty blockers even existed", ">\n\nNot everyone has a rational basis for what they believe. If you can educate them by providing evidence that they didn't know was out there, isn't that a good thing?", ">\n\nout of curiosity, what changes have been put into place because of this bimonthly feedback here if any?\nI'm also curious what could be done about threads that have hundreds of replies, and an OP who is clearly there and responding, and then the thread just goes away because \"You must demonstrate you are open to the view changing\".\nWhat criteria is ever used for demonstrating this? Perhaps when a thread is hundreds of replies deep, there must clearly be a reason for the removal, not just a 'vibe'... why not at least put that reason in there instead of just removing and saying \"Rule 2\"?", ">\n\n\nwhat changes have been put into place because of this bimonthly feedback here if any?\n\nThere have been a few. Off the top of my head, we've made adjustments to how we handle the influx of gender-related posts and the Rule B pre-removal message is a direct result of suggestions here.\nThe problem is that we don't get a ton of actionable feedback from folks. People either ask for things that fundamentally change what CMV is (which we won't do) or things that aren't realistically possible (due to Reddit limitations or lack of developers for custom bots).\nWe have these threads because we want to listen, but not every suggestion is something we'll accept.\n\nWhat criteria is ever used for demonstrating this?\n\nThe Rule B wiki has a very long list of the criteria we use to evaluate that rule.\n\nwhy not at least put that reason in there\n\nWe'd like to do that, but we simply don't have the manpower to go through and provide specific examples for every removal. Frankly, we already struggle to keep up with the workload here, so anything that increases that workload isn't something we can consider until we get a significant number of moderators.", ">\n\n\nOff the top of my head, we've made adjustments to how we handle the influx of gender-related posts\n\nCan you expand on this? What adjustments have been made?\nI used to really enjoy this subreddit, but have lately been feeling that the constant posts about gender (which inevitably are either pushing some hateful rhetoric or get filled up with it in the comments) have been taxing on my mental state and I've had to begin avoiding coming here all together.", ">\n\nWe limit posts on gender-related topics to a single active post per day. Trust me, there are a lot more that try to get through that we stop. We don't get them all (sometimes one gets through that we don't see) but I'd guess that we end up pulling 2/3 of the gender stuff that gets posted. We are also much more heavily policing off-topic gender rants in posts not about that topic (under Rule 5).\nI get that it is taxing, but one of our core values is that we, as the moderation team, don't decide what views are off-limits. We won't ban a topic entirely (save the few that are listed in Rule D) so there will always be gender-related posts here.", ">\n\nOut of curiosity, why is the most recent post perma locked? I noticed it’s locked with loads is disinformation still up within the post, and since it’s locked it’s upvotes have increased 25%, leaving it as the number one post for days. How does leaving this locked topic with loads of disinformation at the top of your sub help improve its function?", ">\n\nThere are hundreds of reports we are still trying to evaluate and clean up. The number of rule violations was overwhelming our team, so we had to pause it until we can get it back under control.", ">\n\nDo you think it’s working that you are upholding your ideas of a CMV sub and people come in here spreading more disinformation than you can handle? To the point where you have to leave it up, exposing untold numbers of visitors to said disinformation? It appears to me that this sub is very prone to the social media version of ‘the Gish gallop’.", ">\n\nOur stance is that it is not up to us as the moderation team to determine what is or is not the misinformation. That is up to the users in the individual threads.\nWe are forced to lock maybe one post a month because we are overwhelmed. It isn't a significant problem in our eyes.", ">\n\nWhy isn't it up to you? Someone says something which is verifiably wrong, proven by research, and you don't have the ability to declare that disinformation? There's a very clear difference between misinformation and disinformation, and I would suggest that your sub has a massive issue with the second moreso than the first. How does it improve your sub to have a mod team which is so hands off that you allow people to spread straight lies?", ">\n\nOur ethos is that moderators are not the arbiters of truth. We don't decide what views are right or wrong - this isn't our role. Our role is to keep things civil and on topic; its the role of our users to argue the information presented in threads.\nThis is a foundational principle of CMV and isn't going to change." ]
> Is it possible to block deletion? Sadly, no. Reddit doesn't allow us to disable deletions. We do try and keep track of them in our notes and we use it as evidence if a user is reaching the threshold for a ban. Or to have a community system of deltas for people who should have had them but didn't? We really don't want to do that. Deltas are about the OP's view and what made their view change, so any system were someone other than the OP decides that an argument should have been good enough for a view-change isn't something we want to implement as it would cheapen deltas.	[ "So first off, I realize there’s probably not much that can be done about this, so this mostly me just venting.\nBut theres several common occurrences on this sub that I frequently see that rub me the wrong way:\n\n\nThe personal therapy posts. I’ve always felt that this sub is supposed to be about changing peoples views they have about some aspect of how the world works. But there are a lot of posts where it’s clearly people just looking for some kind of therapy/validation for their personal situation. “Change my view that my life doesn’t suck” or stuff that’s more meant for an r/AmITheAsshole kind of sub.\n\n\nThe broad stroke generalizations based solely on personal anecdotes. I’ve also seen a lot of posts where someone will make an incredibly broad stroke generalization based on their single data point personal anecdote, and all it would reasonably take to change their view and prove them wrong is someone else’s personal anecdote demonstrating contrary to their point. \n\n\nJust the other day I saw some post where someone was basically like “I never got any use out of student clubs, therefore they are of no good to anybody, and should be banned.” There were immediately countless other people chiming in with their equally anecdotal stories that they saw great benefit from clubs at schools, so clearly OP is objectively wrong, and it should be an open and shut case, but the person wouldn’t change their view. Eventually they awarded a delta on some minor technicality, but I had jumped in to the convo after the delta had been awarded, and they were still rigidly holding on to their original view. Which brings me to my next point:\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. It feels like a loophole that often gets exploited so people can soapbox. Again, don’t know what can be done, but it’s annoying nonetheless\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting. Paragraphs exist for a reason, and it’s really annoying when the OP is this MASSIVE wall of text with no paragraph breaks.\n\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting. I know that y’all have no control over it, but in my opinion, downvoting is meant to be used to filter out spam and obvious trolls. \n\n\nBut in my experience the Reddit hive mind loves to just pound on the downvote button simply because someone disagrees with them, and once a comment has a couple of negative points, the Reddit hive mind loves to gang up on a slightly downvoted comment and downvote it into oblivion, until it eventually gets hidden. In a place that is supposed to be about open, rational and civil discourse, it’s frankly disrespectful. Again, I know that you have no control over it, but there are some subs that do have sticky messages discouraging downvoting precisely for this reason.\nThose are just some thoughts, and mostly just me venting. I understand that y’all don’t get paid, and I appreciate the work that you do.", ">\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. \n\nReport those for Rule B. A minor technicality delta isn't protection from a Rule B removal. We often do remove posts that try to protect against removal using deltas like this.\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\n\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting.\n\nNo one reads stickies and no matter what we try, Redditors won't use downvotes correctly. We'd disable them entirely if we could, but Reddit won't let us.", ">\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nSure there is, make some rules about formatting and take down posts that don't follow them. Plenty of other subs manage it just fine.", ">\n\nI mean, we do have rules about formatting, but those are 100% objective. Rule A requires 500+ characters, while Rule C requires the title to begin with “CMV:”. I’m not sure how to make such a rule for paragraphs that either could be automated or wouldn’t be time-consuming to moderate. What is your suggestion?", ">\n\nI don't personally moderate any subreddits and I am not familiar with the tools available to do so. Perhaps you could reach out to the moderators of other subreddits that do have post formatting requirements to determine what strategies they use to enforce them. \nr/HobbyDrama is fairly strict that your post must be pretty comprehensive, they may be able to offer advice. I'm sure others would have some ideas. \nI would also break views down into 3 categories: philosophical views, preferential views and views regarding objective facts. \nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts and follow some rules so you let shit fester on the front page, making it clear shit posts are acceptable.", ">\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people. It's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. Friction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. Forcing people to decide which of three categories their view falls into and then following a set of rules based on that category feels like bad friction.\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. Opening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.", ">\n\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people.\n\nIt is reasonable to expect people to follow rules to engage in a useful service \n\nIt's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\n\nBut when we don't understand what someone believes or why we can't do that. \n\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. \n\nThis is actually a good thing since you have repeatedly stated you don't have adequate moderation resources. \n\nFriction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. \n\nPeople that are open minded will read the rules and if there post is taken down will follow the instructions to repost it. \n\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. \n\nThen they frankly weren't that open to it in the first place. \n\nOpening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI'd say 40% plus of posts never open up to critique, they are feels over realz garbage. They not only waste time they make other posts worse by making this a place where garbage is accepted. \n\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.\n\nSometimes you need to make sacrifices to actually accomplish that mission rather than be a platform for misinformation. I would actually argue this subreddit damages the world right now.", ">\n\n\"Fresh Friday\" should start around US east coast morning because the sub is just completely dead each friday until 3pm in central european time.\n(obviously it won't make the sub super active but at least there could be one or two CMV)", ">\n\nOh good, I'm not the only one thinking that. \nLike they said, we are lucky to get a post or two before noon time EST.", ">\n\nHas there been any thought of a sort of automod post on the most common repeated topics? Or a sticky post/wiki with \"common CMV subjects\" for people to read through?\nIt gets tiring for the regular visitors here to repeatedly see the same topics posted, when they've been discussed to death and this new post has nothing different about the last one.\nA sort of \"This appears to be a commonly discussed subject, please check out these other similar CMV's where the OP's view was changed.\" Something to hopefully encourage folks to look at the common arguments and either rethink their own position or realize how their view is different and provide a more interesting/different take on the subject?", ">\n\nThose are already posted when someone submits a thread on a common topic. \nWe don't remove the thread, as we see CMVs as personal to the OP, but we do let them know that other threads exist touching on the subject.", ">\n\nAlthough this has been brought up before, block abuse is still a problem. People, especially OP, using blocks in response to good faith participation (usually in response to an argument they can't respond to or pressing a question they can't answer) is not healthy for this subreddit.", ">\n\nWe know. There is nothing we can do about it. I've begged the Admins for better tools to address the problem but have gotten no response.", ">\n\nCan you do nothing even when there are multiple users reporting they have been blocked and when the blocker is explicit about having blocked people? I didn't think this problem was so bad until a current CMV post when multiple people said they had been blocked by the same user who then (according to the OP) also blocked the OP.", ">\n\nWe have a long standing policy that we don't act on things we can't personally verify as true. This isn't to say that we don't trust you specifically, but people do lie; I've had people submit photoshopped screencaps to try and get people banned (the idiot photoshopped me without realizing I was a mod, so that didn't work out great for them). If we can't see it with our own eyes, we don't take action.\nIf we start taking a user's word for something, it becomes far too easy to weaponize and exploit.", ">\n\nIf a user is saying they have blocked people in their own public comments, does this not qualify as something you can personally verify as true?", ">\n\nIf the user themselves says that they blocked another user, then yes, we will take that into account. We remove comments like that for Rule 3.", ">\n\nOkay: I will report the instance I am aware of for a rule 3 violation. Thanks.", ">\n\nI feel like there should be some sort of rule where an OP has to read some basic information about gender-related issues before posting about them, so often there are CMVs about gender topics that could have their view changed by a 20 second google. It would be nice if the OPs posting about gender had at least a basic awareness of what happens.\nFor example, today there was a post about teens transitioning and the OP had no idea puberty blockers even existed", ">\n\nNot everyone has a rational basis for what they believe. If you can educate them by providing evidence that they didn't know was out there, isn't that a good thing?", ">\n\nout of curiosity, what changes have been put into place because of this bimonthly feedback here if any?\nI'm also curious what could be done about threads that have hundreds of replies, and an OP who is clearly there and responding, and then the thread just goes away because \"You must demonstrate you are open to the view changing\".\nWhat criteria is ever used for demonstrating this? Perhaps when a thread is hundreds of replies deep, there must clearly be a reason for the removal, not just a 'vibe'... why not at least put that reason in there instead of just removing and saying \"Rule 2\"?", ">\n\n\nwhat changes have been put into place because of this bimonthly feedback here if any?\n\nThere have been a few. Off the top of my head, we've made adjustments to how we handle the influx of gender-related posts and the Rule B pre-removal message is a direct result of suggestions here.\nThe problem is that we don't get a ton of actionable feedback from folks. People either ask for things that fundamentally change what CMV is (which we won't do) or things that aren't realistically possible (due to Reddit limitations or lack of developers for custom bots).\nWe have these threads because we want to listen, but not every suggestion is something we'll accept.\n\nWhat criteria is ever used for demonstrating this?\n\nThe Rule B wiki has a very long list of the criteria we use to evaluate that rule.\n\nwhy not at least put that reason in there\n\nWe'd like to do that, but we simply don't have the manpower to go through and provide specific examples for every removal. Frankly, we already struggle to keep up with the workload here, so anything that increases that workload isn't something we can consider until we get a significant number of moderators.", ">\n\n\nOff the top of my head, we've made adjustments to how we handle the influx of gender-related posts\n\nCan you expand on this? What adjustments have been made?\nI used to really enjoy this subreddit, but have lately been feeling that the constant posts about gender (which inevitably are either pushing some hateful rhetoric or get filled up with it in the comments) have been taxing on my mental state and I've had to begin avoiding coming here all together.", ">\n\nWe limit posts on gender-related topics to a single active post per day. Trust me, there are a lot more that try to get through that we stop. We don't get them all (sometimes one gets through that we don't see) but I'd guess that we end up pulling 2/3 of the gender stuff that gets posted. We are also much more heavily policing off-topic gender rants in posts not about that topic (under Rule 5).\nI get that it is taxing, but one of our core values is that we, as the moderation team, don't decide what views are off-limits. We won't ban a topic entirely (save the few that are listed in Rule D) so there will always be gender-related posts here.", ">\n\nOut of curiosity, why is the most recent post perma locked? I noticed it’s locked with loads is disinformation still up within the post, and since it’s locked it’s upvotes have increased 25%, leaving it as the number one post for days. How does leaving this locked topic with loads of disinformation at the top of your sub help improve its function?", ">\n\nThere are hundreds of reports we are still trying to evaluate and clean up. The number of rule violations was overwhelming our team, so we had to pause it until we can get it back under control.", ">\n\nDo you think it’s working that you are upholding your ideas of a CMV sub and people come in here spreading more disinformation than you can handle? To the point where you have to leave it up, exposing untold numbers of visitors to said disinformation? It appears to me that this sub is very prone to the social media version of ‘the Gish gallop’.", ">\n\nOur stance is that it is not up to us as the moderation team to determine what is or is not the misinformation. That is up to the users in the individual threads.\nWe are forced to lock maybe one post a month because we are overwhelmed. It isn't a significant problem in our eyes.", ">\n\nWhy isn't it up to you? Someone says something which is verifiably wrong, proven by research, and you don't have the ability to declare that disinformation? There's a very clear difference between misinformation and disinformation, and I would suggest that your sub has a massive issue with the second moreso than the first. How does it improve your sub to have a mod team which is so hands off that you allow people to spread straight lies?", ">\n\nOur ethos is that moderators are not the arbiters of truth. We don't decide what views are right or wrong - this isn't our role. Our role is to keep things civil and on topic; its the role of our users to argue the information presented in threads.\nThis is a foundational principle of CMV and isn't going to change.", ">\n\nNot sure about solutions but it feels like every other post where someone hasn't understood the sub, they see all the posts roasting and dismantling their position and just delete their post rather than award deltas or offer counter arguments.\nIs it possible to block deletion? Or to have a community system of deltas for people who should have had them but didn't?" ]
> What about a second metric for how many times you contributed to an OP rage quitting? "Sigmas"	[ "So first off, I realize there’s probably not much that can be done about this, so this mostly me just venting.\nBut theres several common occurrences on this sub that I frequently see that rub me the wrong way:\n\n\nThe personal therapy posts. I’ve always felt that this sub is supposed to be about changing peoples views they have about some aspect of how the world works. But there are a lot of posts where it’s clearly people just looking for some kind of therapy/validation for their personal situation. “Change my view that my life doesn’t suck” or stuff that’s more meant for an r/AmITheAsshole kind of sub.\n\n\nThe broad stroke generalizations based solely on personal anecdotes. I’ve also seen a lot of posts where someone will make an incredibly broad stroke generalization based on their single data point personal anecdote, and all it would reasonably take to change their view and prove them wrong is someone else’s personal anecdote demonstrating contrary to their point. \n\n\nJust the other day I saw some post where someone was basically like “I never got any use out of student clubs, therefore they are of no good to anybody, and should be banned.” There were immediately countless other people chiming in with their equally anecdotal stories that they saw great benefit from clubs at schools, so clearly OP is objectively wrong, and it should be an open and shut case, but the person wouldn’t change their view. Eventually they awarded a delta on some minor technicality, but I had jumped in to the convo after the delta had been awarded, and they were still rigidly holding on to their original view. Which brings me to my next point:\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. It feels like a loophole that often gets exploited so people can soapbox. Again, don’t know what can be done, but it’s annoying nonetheless\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting. Paragraphs exist for a reason, and it’s really annoying when the OP is this MASSIVE wall of text with no paragraph breaks.\n\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting. I know that y’all have no control over it, but in my opinion, downvoting is meant to be used to filter out spam and obvious trolls. \n\n\nBut in my experience the Reddit hive mind loves to just pound on the downvote button simply because someone disagrees with them, and once a comment has a couple of negative points, the Reddit hive mind loves to gang up on a slightly downvoted comment and downvote it into oblivion, until it eventually gets hidden. In a place that is supposed to be about open, rational and civil discourse, it’s frankly disrespectful. Again, I know that you have no control over it, but there are some subs that do have sticky messages discouraging downvoting precisely for this reason.\nThose are just some thoughts, and mostly just me venting. I understand that y’all don’t get paid, and I appreciate the work that you do.", ">\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. \n\nReport those for Rule B. A minor technicality delta isn't protection from a Rule B removal. We often do remove posts that try to protect against removal using deltas like this.\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\n\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting.\n\nNo one reads stickies and no matter what we try, Redditors won't use downvotes correctly. We'd disable them entirely if we could, but Reddit won't let us.", ">\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nSure there is, make some rules about formatting and take down posts that don't follow them. Plenty of other subs manage it just fine.", ">\n\nI mean, we do have rules about formatting, but those are 100% objective. Rule A requires 500+ characters, while Rule C requires the title to begin with “CMV:”. I’m not sure how to make such a rule for paragraphs that either could be automated or wouldn’t be time-consuming to moderate. What is your suggestion?", ">\n\nI don't personally moderate any subreddits and I am not familiar with the tools available to do so. Perhaps you could reach out to the moderators of other subreddits that do have post formatting requirements to determine what strategies they use to enforce them. \nr/HobbyDrama is fairly strict that your post must be pretty comprehensive, they may be able to offer advice. I'm sure others would have some ideas. \nI would also break views down into 3 categories: philosophical views, preferential views and views regarding objective facts. \nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts and follow some rules so you let shit fester on the front page, making it clear shit posts are acceptable.", ">\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people. It's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. Friction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. Forcing people to decide which of three categories their view falls into and then following a set of rules based on that category feels like bad friction.\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. Opening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.", ">\n\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people.\n\nIt is reasonable to expect people to follow rules to engage in a useful service \n\nIt's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\n\nBut when we don't understand what someone believes or why we can't do that. \n\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. \n\nThis is actually a good thing since you have repeatedly stated you don't have adequate moderation resources. \n\nFriction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. \n\nPeople that are open minded will read the rules and if there post is taken down will follow the instructions to repost it. \n\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. \n\nThen they frankly weren't that open to it in the first place. \n\nOpening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI'd say 40% plus of posts never open up to critique, they are feels over realz garbage. They not only waste time they make other posts worse by making this a place where garbage is accepted. \n\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.\n\nSometimes you need to make sacrifices to actually accomplish that mission rather than be a platform for misinformation. I would actually argue this subreddit damages the world right now.", ">\n\n\"Fresh Friday\" should start around US east coast morning because the sub is just completely dead each friday until 3pm in central european time.\n(obviously it won't make the sub super active but at least there could be one or two CMV)", ">\n\nOh good, I'm not the only one thinking that. \nLike they said, we are lucky to get a post or two before noon time EST.", ">\n\nHas there been any thought of a sort of automod post on the most common repeated topics? Or a sticky post/wiki with \"common CMV subjects\" for people to read through?\nIt gets tiring for the regular visitors here to repeatedly see the same topics posted, when they've been discussed to death and this new post has nothing different about the last one.\nA sort of \"This appears to be a commonly discussed subject, please check out these other similar CMV's where the OP's view was changed.\" Something to hopefully encourage folks to look at the common arguments and either rethink their own position or realize how their view is different and provide a more interesting/different take on the subject?", ">\n\nThose are already posted when someone submits a thread on a common topic. \nWe don't remove the thread, as we see CMVs as personal to the OP, but we do let them know that other threads exist touching on the subject.", ">\n\nAlthough this has been brought up before, block abuse is still a problem. People, especially OP, using blocks in response to good faith participation (usually in response to an argument they can't respond to or pressing a question they can't answer) is not healthy for this subreddit.", ">\n\nWe know. There is nothing we can do about it. I've begged the Admins for better tools to address the problem but have gotten no response.", ">\n\nCan you do nothing even when there are multiple users reporting they have been blocked and when the blocker is explicit about having blocked people? I didn't think this problem was so bad until a current CMV post when multiple people said they had been blocked by the same user who then (according to the OP) also blocked the OP.", ">\n\nWe have a long standing policy that we don't act on things we can't personally verify as true. This isn't to say that we don't trust you specifically, but people do lie; I've had people submit photoshopped screencaps to try and get people banned (the idiot photoshopped me without realizing I was a mod, so that didn't work out great for them). If we can't see it with our own eyes, we don't take action.\nIf we start taking a user's word for something, it becomes far too easy to weaponize and exploit.", ">\n\nIf a user is saying they have blocked people in their own public comments, does this not qualify as something you can personally verify as true?", ">\n\nIf the user themselves says that they blocked another user, then yes, we will take that into account. We remove comments like that for Rule 3.", ">\n\nOkay: I will report the instance I am aware of for a rule 3 violation. Thanks.", ">\n\nI feel like there should be some sort of rule where an OP has to read some basic information about gender-related issues before posting about them, so often there are CMVs about gender topics that could have their view changed by a 20 second google. It would be nice if the OPs posting about gender had at least a basic awareness of what happens.\nFor example, today there was a post about teens transitioning and the OP had no idea puberty blockers even existed", ">\n\nNot everyone has a rational basis for what they believe. If you can educate them by providing evidence that they didn't know was out there, isn't that a good thing?", ">\n\nout of curiosity, what changes have been put into place because of this bimonthly feedback here if any?\nI'm also curious what could be done about threads that have hundreds of replies, and an OP who is clearly there and responding, and then the thread just goes away because \"You must demonstrate you are open to the view changing\".\nWhat criteria is ever used for demonstrating this? Perhaps when a thread is hundreds of replies deep, there must clearly be a reason for the removal, not just a 'vibe'... why not at least put that reason in there instead of just removing and saying \"Rule 2\"?", ">\n\n\nwhat changes have been put into place because of this bimonthly feedback here if any?\n\nThere have been a few. Off the top of my head, we've made adjustments to how we handle the influx of gender-related posts and the Rule B pre-removal message is a direct result of suggestions here.\nThe problem is that we don't get a ton of actionable feedback from folks. People either ask for things that fundamentally change what CMV is (which we won't do) or things that aren't realistically possible (due to Reddit limitations or lack of developers for custom bots).\nWe have these threads because we want to listen, but not every suggestion is something we'll accept.\n\nWhat criteria is ever used for demonstrating this?\n\nThe Rule B wiki has a very long list of the criteria we use to evaluate that rule.\n\nwhy not at least put that reason in there\n\nWe'd like to do that, but we simply don't have the manpower to go through and provide specific examples for every removal. Frankly, we already struggle to keep up with the workload here, so anything that increases that workload isn't something we can consider until we get a significant number of moderators.", ">\n\n\nOff the top of my head, we've made adjustments to how we handle the influx of gender-related posts\n\nCan you expand on this? What adjustments have been made?\nI used to really enjoy this subreddit, but have lately been feeling that the constant posts about gender (which inevitably are either pushing some hateful rhetoric or get filled up with it in the comments) have been taxing on my mental state and I've had to begin avoiding coming here all together.", ">\n\nWe limit posts on gender-related topics to a single active post per day. Trust me, there are a lot more that try to get through that we stop. We don't get them all (sometimes one gets through that we don't see) but I'd guess that we end up pulling 2/3 of the gender stuff that gets posted. We are also much more heavily policing off-topic gender rants in posts not about that topic (under Rule 5).\nI get that it is taxing, but one of our core values is that we, as the moderation team, don't decide what views are off-limits. We won't ban a topic entirely (save the few that are listed in Rule D) so there will always be gender-related posts here.", ">\n\nOut of curiosity, why is the most recent post perma locked? I noticed it’s locked with loads is disinformation still up within the post, and since it’s locked it’s upvotes have increased 25%, leaving it as the number one post for days. How does leaving this locked topic with loads of disinformation at the top of your sub help improve its function?", ">\n\nThere are hundreds of reports we are still trying to evaluate and clean up. The number of rule violations was overwhelming our team, so we had to pause it until we can get it back under control.", ">\n\nDo you think it’s working that you are upholding your ideas of a CMV sub and people come in here spreading more disinformation than you can handle? To the point where you have to leave it up, exposing untold numbers of visitors to said disinformation? It appears to me that this sub is very prone to the social media version of ‘the Gish gallop’.", ">\n\nOur stance is that it is not up to us as the moderation team to determine what is or is not the misinformation. That is up to the users in the individual threads.\nWe are forced to lock maybe one post a month because we are overwhelmed. It isn't a significant problem in our eyes.", ">\n\nWhy isn't it up to you? Someone says something which is verifiably wrong, proven by research, and you don't have the ability to declare that disinformation? There's a very clear difference between misinformation and disinformation, and I would suggest that your sub has a massive issue with the second moreso than the first. How does it improve your sub to have a mod team which is so hands off that you allow people to spread straight lies?", ">\n\nOur ethos is that moderators are not the arbiters of truth. We don't decide what views are right or wrong - this isn't our role. Our role is to keep things civil and on topic; its the role of our users to argue the information presented in threads.\nThis is a foundational principle of CMV and isn't going to change.", ">\n\nNot sure about solutions but it feels like every other post where someone hasn't understood the sub, they see all the posts roasting and dismantling their position and just delete their post rather than award deltas or offer counter arguments.\nIs it possible to block deletion? Or to have a community system of deltas for people who should have had them but didn't?", ">\n\n\nIs it possible to block deletion?\n\nSadly, no. Reddit doesn't allow us to disable deletions.\nWe do try and keep track of them in our notes and we use it as evidence if a user is reaching the threshold for a ban.\n\nOr to have a community system of deltas for people who should have had them but didn't?\n\nWe really don't want to do that. Deltas are about the OP's view and what made their view change, so any system were someone other than the OP decides that an argument should have been good enough for a view-change isn't something we want to implement as it would cheapen deltas." ]
> I know it’s not possible, but I often joke to myself that I wish there was a way to track wagers on whether or not a post will be removed for a rule B violation. Because there are some that are so obviously soap boxing that I don’t even bother trying to change their view, and just grab the popcorn and wait.	[ "So first off, I realize there’s probably not much that can be done about this, so this mostly me just venting.\nBut theres several common occurrences on this sub that I frequently see that rub me the wrong way:\n\n\nThe personal therapy posts. I’ve always felt that this sub is supposed to be about changing peoples views they have about some aspect of how the world works. But there are a lot of posts where it’s clearly people just looking for some kind of therapy/validation for their personal situation. “Change my view that my life doesn’t suck” or stuff that’s more meant for an r/AmITheAsshole kind of sub.\n\n\nThe broad stroke generalizations based solely on personal anecdotes. I’ve also seen a lot of posts where someone will make an incredibly broad stroke generalization based on their single data point personal anecdote, and all it would reasonably take to change their view and prove them wrong is someone else’s personal anecdote demonstrating contrary to their point. \n\n\nJust the other day I saw some post where someone was basically like “I never got any use out of student clubs, therefore they are of no good to anybody, and should be banned.” There were immediately countless other people chiming in with their equally anecdotal stories that they saw great benefit from clubs at schools, so clearly OP is objectively wrong, and it should be an open and shut case, but the person wouldn’t change their view. Eventually they awarded a delta on some minor technicality, but I had jumped in to the convo after the delta had been awarded, and they were still rigidly holding on to their original view. Which brings me to my next point:\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. It feels like a loophole that often gets exploited so people can soapbox. Again, don’t know what can be done, but it’s annoying nonetheless\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting. Paragraphs exist for a reason, and it’s really annoying when the OP is this MASSIVE wall of text with no paragraph breaks.\n\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting. I know that y’all have no control over it, but in my opinion, downvoting is meant to be used to filter out spam and obvious trolls. \n\n\nBut in my experience the Reddit hive mind loves to just pound on the downvote button simply because someone disagrees with them, and once a comment has a couple of negative points, the Reddit hive mind loves to gang up on a slightly downvoted comment and downvote it into oblivion, until it eventually gets hidden. In a place that is supposed to be about open, rational and civil discourse, it’s frankly disrespectful. Again, I know that you have no control over it, but there are some subs that do have sticky messages discouraging downvoting precisely for this reason.\nThose are just some thoughts, and mostly just me venting. I understand that y’all don’t get paid, and I appreciate the work that you do.", ">\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. \n\nReport those for Rule B. A minor technicality delta isn't protection from a Rule B removal. We often do remove posts that try to protect against removal using deltas like this.\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\n\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting.\n\nNo one reads stickies and no matter what we try, Redditors won't use downvotes correctly. We'd disable them entirely if we could, but Reddit won't let us.", ">\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nSure there is, make some rules about formatting and take down posts that don't follow them. Plenty of other subs manage it just fine.", ">\n\nI mean, we do have rules about formatting, but those are 100% objective. Rule A requires 500+ characters, while Rule C requires the title to begin with “CMV:”. I’m not sure how to make such a rule for paragraphs that either could be automated or wouldn’t be time-consuming to moderate. What is your suggestion?", ">\n\nI don't personally moderate any subreddits and I am not familiar with the tools available to do so. Perhaps you could reach out to the moderators of other subreddits that do have post formatting requirements to determine what strategies they use to enforce them. \nr/HobbyDrama is fairly strict that your post must be pretty comprehensive, they may be able to offer advice. I'm sure others would have some ideas. \nI would also break views down into 3 categories: philosophical views, preferential views and views regarding objective facts. \nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts and follow some rules so you let shit fester on the front page, making it clear shit posts are acceptable.", ">\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people. It's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. Friction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. Forcing people to decide which of three categories their view falls into and then following a set of rules based on that category feels like bad friction.\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. Opening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.", ">\n\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people.\n\nIt is reasonable to expect people to follow rules to engage in a useful service \n\nIt's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\n\nBut when we don't understand what someone believes or why we can't do that. \n\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. \n\nThis is actually a good thing since you have repeatedly stated you don't have adequate moderation resources. \n\nFriction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. \n\nPeople that are open minded will read the rules and if there post is taken down will follow the instructions to repost it. \n\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. \n\nThen they frankly weren't that open to it in the first place. \n\nOpening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI'd say 40% plus of posts never open up to critique, they are feels over realz garbage. They not only waste time they make other posts worse by making this a place where garbage is accepted. \n\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.\n\nSometimes you need to make sacrifices to actually accomplish that mission rather than be a platform for misinformation. I would actually argue this subreddit damages the world right now.", ">\n\n\"Fresh Friday\" should start around US east coast morning because the sub is just completely dead each friday until 3pm in central european time.\n(obviously it won't make the sub super active but at least there could be one or two CMV)", ">\n\nOh good, I'm not the only one thinking that. \nLike they said, we are lucky to get a post or two before noon time EST.", ">\n\nHas there been any thought of a sort of automod post on the most common repeated topics? Or a sticky post/wiki with \"common CMV subjects\" for people to read through?\nIt gets tiring for the regular visitors here to repeatedly see the same topics posted, when they've been discussed to death and this new post has nothing different about the last one.\nA sort of \"This appears to be a commonly discussed subject, please check out these other similar CMV's where the OP's view was changed.\" Something to hopefully encourage folks to look at the common arguments and either rethink their own position or realize how their view is different and provide a more interesting/different take on the subject?", ">\n\nThose are already posted when someone submits a thread on a common topic. \nWe don't remove the thread, as we see CMVs as personal to the OP, but we do let them know that other threads exist touching on the subject.", ">\n\nAlthough this has been brought up before, block abuse is still a problem. People, especially OP, using blocks in response to good faith participation (usually in response to an argument they can't respond to or pressing a question they can't answer) is not healthy for this subreddit.", ">\n\nWe know. There is nothing we can do about it. I've begged the Admins for better tools to address the problem but have gotten no response.", ">\n\nCan you do nothing even when there are multiple users reporting they have been blocked and when the blocker is explicit about having blocked people? I didn't think this problem was so bad until a current CMV post when multiple people said they had been blocked by the same user who then (according to the OP) also blocked the OP.", ">\n\nWe have a long standing policy that we don't act on things we can't personally verify as true. This isn't to say that we don't trust you specifically, but people do lie; I've had people submit photoshopped screencaps to try and get people banned (the idiot photoshopped me without realizing I was a mod, so that didn't work out great for them). If we can't see it with our own eyes, we don't take action.\nIf we start taking a user's word for something, it becomes far too easy to weaponize and exploit.", ">\n\nIf a user is saying they have blocked people in their own public comments, does this not qualify as something you can personally verify as true?", ">\n\nIf the user themselves says that they blocked another user, then yes, we will take that into account. We remove comments like that for Rule 3.", ">\n\nOkay: I will report the instance I am aware of for a rule 3 violation. Thanks.", ">\n\nI feel like there should be some sort of rule where an OP has to read some basic information about gender-related issues before posting about them, so often there are CMVs about gender topics that could have their view changed by a 20 second google. It would be nice if the OPs posting about gender had at least a basic awareness of what happens.\nFor example, today there was a post about teens transitioning and the OP had no idea puberty blockers even existed", ">\n\nNot everyone has a rational basis for what they believe. If you can educate them by providing evidence that they didn't know was out there, isn't that a good thing?", ">\n\nout of curiosity, what changes have been put into place because of this bimonthly feedback here if any?\nI'm also curious what could be done about threads that have hundreds of replies, and an OP who is clearly there and responding, and then the thread just goes away because \"You must demonstrate you are open to the view changing\".\nWhat criteria is ever used for demonstrating this? Perhaps when a thread is hundreds of replies deep, there must clearly be a reason for the removal, not just a 'vibe'... why not at least put that reason in there instead of just removing and saying \"Rule 2\"?", ">\n\n\nwhat changes have been put into place because of this bimonthly feedback here if any?\n\nThere have been a few. Off the top of my head, we've made adjustments to how we handle the influx of gender-related posts and the Rule B pre-removal message is a direct result of suggestions here.\nThe problem is that we don't get a ton of actionable feedback from folks. People either ask for things that fundamentally change what CMV is (which we won't do) or things that aren't realistically possible (due to Reddit limitations or lack of developers for custom bots).\nWe have these threads because we want to listen, but not every suggestion is something we'll accept.\n\nWhat criteria is ever used for demonstrating this?\n\nThe Rule B wiki has a very long list of the criteria we use to evaluate that rule.\n\nwhy not at least put that reason in there\n\nWe'd like to do that, but we simply don't have the manpower to go through and provide specific examples for every removal. Frankly, we already struggle to keep up with the workload here, so anything that increases that workload isn't something we can consider until we get a significant number of moderators.", ">\n\n\nOff the top of my head, we've made adjustments to how we handle the influx of gender-related posts\n\nCan you expand on this? What adjustments have been made?\nI used to really enjoy this subreddit, but have lately been feeling that the constant posts about gender (which inevitably are either pushing some hateful rhetoric or get filled up with it in the comments) have been taxing on my mental state and I've had to begin avoiding coming here all together.", ">\n\nWe limit posts on gender-related topics to a single active post per day. Trust me, there are a lot more that try to get through that we stop. We don't get them all (sometimes one gets through that we don't see) but I'd guess that we end up pulling 2/3 of the gender stuff that gets posted. We are also much more heavily policing off-topic gender rants in posts not about that topic (under Rule 5).\nI get that it is taxing, but one of our core values is that we, as the moderation team, don't decide what views are off-limits. We won't ban a topic entirely (save the few that are listed in Rule D) so there will always be gender-related posts here.", ">\n\nOut of curiosity, why is the most recent post perma locked? I noticed it’s locked with loads is disinformation still up within the post, and since it’s locked it’s upvotes have increased 25%, leaving it as the number one post for days. How does leaving this locked topic with loads of disinformation at the top of your sub help improve its function?", ">\n\nThere are hundreds of reports we are still trying to evaluate and clean up. The number of rule violations was overwhelming our team, so we had to pause it until we can get it back under control.", ">\n\nDo you think it’s working that you are upholding your ideas of a CMV sub and people come in here spreading more disinformation than you can handle? To the point where you have to leave it up, exposing untold numbers of visitors to said disinformation? It appears to me that this sub is very prone to the social media version of ‘the Gish gallop’.", ">\n\nOur stance is that it is not up to us as the moderation team to determine what is or is not the misinformation. That is up to the users in the individual threads.\nWe are forced to lock maybe one post a month because we are overwhelmed. It isn't a significant problem in our eyes.", ">\n\nWhy isn't it up to you? Someone says something which is verifiably wrong, proven by research, and you don't have the ability to declare that disinformation? There's a very clear difference between misinformation and disinformation, and I would suggest that your sub has a massive issue with the second moreso than the first. How does it improve your sub to have a mod team which is so hands off that you allow people to spread straight lies?", ">\n\nOur ethos is that moderators are not the arbiters of truth. We don't decide what views are right or wrong - this isn't our role. Our role is to keep things civil and on topic; its the role of our users to argue the information presented in threads.\nThis is a foundational principle of CMV and isn't going to change.", ">\n\nNot sure about solutions but it feels like every other post where someone hasn't understood the sub, they see all the posts roasting and dismantling their position and just delete their post rather than award deltas or offer counter arguments.\nIs it possible to block deletion? Or to have a community system of deltas for people who should have had them but didn't?", ">\n\n\nIs it possible to block deletion?\n\nSadly, no. Reddit doesn't allow us to disable deletions.\nWe do try and keep track of them in our notes and we use it as evidence if a user is reaching the threshold for a ban.\n\nOr to have a community system of deltas for people who should have had them but didn't?\n\nWe really don't want to do that. Deltas are about the OP's view and what made their view change, so any system were someone other than the OP decides that an argument should have been good enough for a view-change isn't something we want to implement as it would cheapen deltas.", ">\n\nWhat about a second metric for how many times you contributed to an OP rage quitting? \"Sigmas\"" ]
> Sometimes you can just sense the rule B violation approaching from the language in the post, or their first reply. I think that once a post has been removed for rule B mods should stop enforcing the rules so that everyone can roast them.	[ "So first off, I realize there’s probably not much that can be done about this, so this mostly me just venting.\nBut theres several common occurrences on this sub that I frequently see that rub me the wrong way:\n\n\nThe personal therapy posts. I’ve always felt that this sub is supposed to be about changing peoples views they have about some aspect of how the world works. But there are a lot of posts where it’s clearly people just looking for some kind of therapy/validation for their personal situation. “Change my view that my life doesn’t suck” or stuff that’s more meant for an r/AmITheAsshole kind of sub.\n\n\nThe broad stroke generalizations based solely on personal anecdotes. I’ve also seen a lot of posts where someone will make an incredibly broad stroke generalization based on their single data point personal anecdote, and all it would reasonably take to change their view and prove them wrong is someone else’s personal anecdote demonstrating contrary to their point. \n\n\nJust the other day I saw some post where someone was basically like “I never got any use out of student clubs, therefore they are of no good to anybody, and should be banned.” There were immediately countless other people chiming in with their equally anecdotal stories that they saw great benefit from clubs at schools, so clearly OP is objectively wrong, and it should be an open and shut case, but the person wouldn’t change their view. Eventually they awarded a delta on some minor technicality, but I had jumped in to the convo after the delta had been awarded, and they were still rigidly holding on to their original view. Which brings me to my next point:\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. It feels like a loophole that often gets exploited so people can soapbox. Again, don’t know what can be done, but it’s annoying nonetheless\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting. Paragraphs exist for a reason, and it’s really annoying when the OP is this MASSIVE wall of text with no paragraph breaks.\n\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting. I know that y’all have no control over it, but in my opinion, downvoting is meant to be used to filter out spam and obvious trolls. \n\n\nBut in my experience the Reddit hive mind loves to just pound on the downvote button simply because someone disagrees with them, and once a comment has a couple of negative points, the Reddit hive mind loves to gang up on a slightly downvoted comment and downvote it into oblivion, until it eventually gets hidden. In a place that is supposed to be about open, rational and civil discourse, it’s frankly disrespectful. Again, I know that you have no control over it, but there are some subs that do have sticky messages discouraging downvoting precisely for this reason.\nThose are just some thoughts, and mostly just me venting. I understand that y’all don’t get paid, and I appreciate the work that you do.", ">\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. \n\nReport those for Rule B. A minor technicality delta isn't protection from a Rule B removal. We often do remove posts that try to protect against removal using deltas like this.\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\n\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting.\n\nNo one reads stickies and no matter what we try, Redditors won't use downvotes correctly. We'd disable them entirely if we could, but Reddit won't let us.", ">\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nSure there is, make some rules about formatting and take down posts that don't follow them. Plenty of other subs manage it just fine.", ">\n\nI mean, we do have rules about formatting, but those are 100% objective. Rule A requires 500+ characters, while Rule C requires the title to begin with “CMV:”. I’m not sure how to make such a rule for paragraphs that either could be automated or wouldn’t be time-consuming to moderate. What is your suggestion?", ">\n\nI don't personally moderate any subreddits and I am not familiar with the tools available to do so. Perhaps you could reach out to the moderators of other subreddits that do have post formatting requirements to determine what strategies they use to enforce them. \nr/HobbyDrama is fairly strict that your post must be pretty comprehensive, they may be able to offer advice. I'm sure others would have some ideas. \nI would also break views down into 3 categories: philosophical views, preferential views and views regarding objective facts. \nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts and follow some rules so you let shit fester on the front page, making it clear shit posts are acceptable.", ">\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people. It's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. Friction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. Forcing people to decide which of three categories their view falls into and then following a set of rules based on that category feels like bad friction.\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. Opening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.", ">\n\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people.\n\nIt is reasonable to expect people to follow rules to engage in a useful service \n\nIt's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\n\nBut when we don't understand what someone believes or why we can't do that. \n\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. \n\nThis is actually a good thing since you have repeatedly stated you don't have adequate moderation resources. \n\nFriction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. \n\nPeople that are open minded will read the rules and if there post is taken down will follow the instructions to repost it. \n\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. \n\nThen they frankly weren't that open to it in the first place. \n\nOpening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI'd say 40% plus of posts never open up to critique, they are feels over realz garbage. They not only waste time they make other posts worse by making this a place where garbage is accepted. \n\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.\n\nSometimes you need to make sacrifices to actually accomplish that mission rather than be a platform for misinformation. I would actually argue this subreddit damages the world right now.", ">\n\n\"Fresh Friday\" should start around US east coast morning because the sub is just completely dead each friday until 3pm in central european time.\n(obviously it won't make the sub super active but at least there could be one or two CMV)", ">\n\nOh good, I'm not the only one thinking that. \nLike they said, we are lucky to get a post or two before noon time EST.", ">\n\nHas there been any thought of a sort of automod post on the most common repeated topics? Or a sticky post/wiki with \"common CMV subjects\" for people to read through?\nIt gets tiring for the regular visitors here to repeatedly see the same topics posted, when they've been discussed to death and this new post has nothing different about the last one.\nA sort of \"This appears to be a commonly discussed subject, please check out these other similar CMV's where the OP's view was changed.\" Something to hopefully encourage folks to look at the common arguments and either rethink their own position or realize how their view is different and provide a more interesting/different take on the subject?", ">\n\nThose are already posted when someone submits a thread on a common topic. \nWe don't remove the thread, as we see CMVs as personal to the OP, but we do let them know that other threads exist touching on the subject.", ">\n\nAlthough this has been brought up before, block abuse is still a problem. People, especially OP, using blocks in response to good faith participation (usually in response to an argument they can't respond to or pressing a question they can't answer) is not healthy for this subreddit.", ">\n\nWe know. There is nothing we can do about it. I've begged the Admins for better tools to address the problem but have gotten no response.", ">\n\nCan you do nothing even when there are multiple users reporting they have been blocked and when the blocker is explicit about having blocked people? I didn't think this problem was so bad until a current CMV post when multiple people said they had been blocked by the same user who then (according to the OP) also blocked the OP.", ">\n\nWe have a long standing policy that we don't act on things we can't personally verify as true. This isn't to say that we don't trust you specifically, but people do lie; I've had people submit photoshopped screencaps to try and get people banned (the idiot photoshopped me without realizing I was a mod, so that didn't work out great for them). If we can't see it with our own eyes, we don't take action.\nIf we start taking a user's word for something, it becomes far too easy to weaponize and exploit.", ">\n\nIf a user is saying they have blocked people in their own public comments, does this not qualify as something you can personally verify as true?", ">\n\nIf the user themselves says that they blocked another user, then yes, we will take that into account. We remove comments like that for Rule 3.", ">\n\nOkay: I will report the instance I am aware of for a rule 3 violation. Thanks.", ">\n\nI feel like there should be some sort of rule where an OP has to read some basic information about gender-related issues before posting about them, so often there are CMVs about gender topics that could have their view changed by a 20 second google. It would be nice if the OPs posting about gender had at least a basic awareness of what happens.\nFor example, today there was a post about teens transitioning and the OP had no idea puberty blockers even existed", ">\n\nNot everyone has a rational basis for what they believe. If you can educate them by providing evidence that they didn't know was out there, isn't that a good thing?", ">\n\nout of curiosity, what changes have been put into place because of this bimonthly feedback here if any?\nI'm also curious what could be done about threads that have hundreds of replies, and an OP who is clearly there and responding, and then the thread just goes away because \"You must demonstrate you are open to the view changing\".\nWhat criteria is ever used for demonstrating this? Perhaps when a thread is hundreds of replies deep, there must clearly be a reason for the removal, not just a 'vibe'... why not at least put that reason in there instead of just removing and saying \"Rule 2\"?", ">\n\n\nwhat changes have been put into place because of this bimonthly feedback here if any?\n\nThere have been a few. Off the top of my head, we've made adjustments to how we handle the influx of gender-related posts and the Rule B pre-removal message is a direct result of suggestions here.\nThe problem is that we don't get a ton of actionable feedback from folks. People either ask for things that fundamentally change what CMV is (which we won't do) or things that aren't realistically possible (due to Reddit limitations or lack of developers for custom bots).\nWe have these threads because we want to listen, but not every suggestion is something we'll accept.\n\nWhat criteria is ever used for demonstrating this?\n\nThe Rule B wiki has a very long list of the criteria we use to evaluate that rule.\n\nwhy not at least put that reason in there\n\nWe'd like to do that, but we simply don't have the manpower to go through and provide specific examples for every removal. Frankly, we already struggle to keep up with the workload here, so anything that increases that workload isn't something we can consider until we get a significant number of moderators.", ">\n\n\nOff the top of my head, we've made adjustments to how we handle the influx of gender-related posts\n\nCan you expand on this? What adjustments have been made?\nI used to really enjoy this subreddit, but have lately been feeling that the constant posts about gender (which inevitably are either pushing some hateful rhetoric or get filled up with it in the comments) have been taxing on my mental state and I've had to begin avoiding coming here all together.", ">\n\nWe limit posts on gender-related topics to a single active post per day. Trust me, there are a lot more that try to get through that we stop. We don't get them all (sometimes one gets through that we don't see) but I'd guess that we end up pulling 2/3 of the gender stuff that gets posted. We are also much more heavily policing off-topic gender rants in posts not about that topic (under Rule 5).\nI get that it is taxing, but one of our core values is that we, as the moderation team, don't decide what views are off-limits. We won't ban a topic entirely (save the few that are listed in Rule D) so there will always be gender-related posts here.", ">\n\nOut of curiosity, why is the most recent post perma locked? I noticed it’s locked with loads is disinformation still up within the post, and since it’s locked it’s upvotes have increased 25%, leaving it as the number one post for days. How does leaving this locked topic with loads of disinformation at the top of your sub help improve its function?", ">\n\nThere are hundreds of reports we are still trying to evaluate and clean up. The number of rule violations was overwhelming our team, so we had to pause it until we can get it back under control.", ">\n\nDo you think it’s working that you are upholding your ideas of a CMV sub and people come in here spreading more disinformation than you can handle? To the point where you have to leave it up, exposing untold numbers of visitors to said disinformation? It appears to me that this sub is very prone to the social media version of ‘the Gish gallop’.", ">\n\nOur stance is that it is not up to us as the moderation team to determine what is or is not the misinformation. That is up to the users in the individual threads.\nWe are forced to lock maybe one post a month because we are overwhelmed. It isn't a significant problem in our eyes.", ">\n\nWhy isn't it up to you? Someone says something which is verifiably wrong, proven by research, and you don't have the ability to declare that disinformation? There's a very clear difference between misinformation and disinformation, and I would suggest that your sub has a massive issue with the second moreso than the first. How does it improve your sub to have a mod team which is so hands off that you allow people to spread straight lies?", ">\n\nOur ethos is that moderators are not the arbiters of truth. We don't decide what views are right or wrong - this isn't our role. Our role is to keep things civil and on topic; its the role of our users to argue the information presented in threads.\nThis is a foundational principle of CMV and isn't going to change.", ">\n\nNot sure about solutions but it feels like every other post where someone hasn't understood the sub, they see all the posts roasting and dismantling their position and just delete their post rather than award deltas or offer counter arguments.\nIs it possible to block deletion? Or to have a community system of deltas for people who should have had them but didn't?", ">\n\n\nIs it possible to block deletion?\n\nSadly, no. Reddit doesn't allow us to disable deletions.\nWe do try and keep track of them in our notes and we use it as evidence if a user is reaching the threshold for a ban.\n\nOr to have a community system of deltas for people who should have had them but didn't?\n\nWe really don't want to do that. Deltas are about the OP's view and what made their view change, so any system were someone other than the OP decides that an argument should have been good enough for a view-change isn't something we want to implement as it would cheapen deltas.", ">\n\nWhat about a second metric for how many times you contributed to an OP rage quitting? \"Sigmas\"", ">\n\nI know it’s not possible, but I often joke to myself that I wish there was a way to track wagers on whether or not a post will be removed for a rule B violation.\nBecause there are some that are so obviously soap boxing that I don’t even bother trying to change their view, and just grab the popcorn and wait." ]
> The problem is that 1) in the mod queue there's no way to easily tell if a comment came from a removed post or not, checking that for every comment would add an enormous amount of time and 2) sometimes rule B posts do get reapproved. It's rare but it does happen. So then what would happen to all those rule breaking comments. They were okay while it was down, but not okay now? Any solution there seems real bad	[ "So first off, I realize there’s probably not much that can be done about this, so this mostly me just venting.\nBut theres several common occurrences on this sub that I frequently see that rub me the wrong way:\n\n\nThe personal therapy posts. I’ve always felt that this sub is supposed to be about changing peoples views they have about some aspect of how the world works. But there are a lot of posts where it’s clearly people just looking for some kind of therapy/validation for their personal situation. “Change my view that my life doesn’t suck” or stuff that’s more meant for an r/AmITheAsshole kind of sub.\n\n\nThe broad stroke generalizations based solely on personal anecdotes. I’ve also seen a lot of posts where someone will make an incredibly broad stroke generalization based on their single data point personal anecdote, and all it would reasonably take to change their view and prove them wrong is someone else’s personal anecdote demonstrating contrary to their point. \n\n\nJust the other day I saw some post where someone was basically like “I never got any use out of student clubs, therefore they are of no good to anybody, and should be banned.” There were immediately countless other people chiming in with their equally anecdotal stories that they saw great benefit from clubs at schools, so clearly OP is objectively wrong, and it should be an open and shut case, but the person wouldn’t change their view. Eventually they awarded a delta on some minor technicality, but I had jumped in to the convo after the delta had been awarded, and they were still rigidly holding on to their original view. Which brings me to my next point:\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. It feels like a loophole that often gets exploited so people can soapbox. Again, don’t know what can be done, but it’s annoying nonetheless\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting. Paragraphs exist for a reason, and it’s really annoying when the OP is this MASSIVE wall of text with no paragraph breaks.\n\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting. I know that y’all have no control over it, but in my opinion, downvoting is meant to be used to filter out spam and obvious trolls. \n\n\nBut in my experience the Reddit hive mind loves to just pound on the downvote button simply because someone disagrees with them, and once a comment has a couple of negative points, the Reddit hive mind loves to gang up on a slightly downvoted comment and downvote it into oblivion, until it eventually gets hidden. In a place that is supposed to be about open, rational and civil discourse, it’s frankly disrespectful. Again, I know that you have no control over it, but there are some subs that do have sticky messages discouraging downvoting precisely for this reason.\nThose are just some thoughts, and mostly just me venting. I understand that y’all don’t get paid, and I appreciate the work that you do.", ">\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. \n\nReport those for Rule B. A minor technicality delta isn't protection from a Rule B removal. We often do remove posts that try to protect against removal using deltas like this.\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\n\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting.\n\nNo one reads stickies and no matter what we try, Redditors won't use downvotes correctly. We'd disable them entirely if we could, but Reddit won't let us.", ">\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nSure there is, make some rules about formatting and take down posts that don't follow them. Plenty of other subs manage it just fine.", ">\n\nI mean, we do have rules about formatting, but those are 100% objective. Rule A requires 500+ characters, while Rule C requires the title to begin with “CMV:”. I’m not sure how to make such a rule for paragraphs that either could be automated or wouldn’t be time-consuming to moderate. What is your suggestion?", ">\n\nI don't personally moderate any subreddits and I am not familiar with the tools available to do so. Perhaps you could reach out to the moderators of other subreddits that do have post formatting requirements to determine what strategies they use to enforce them. \nr/HobbyDrama is fairly strict that your post must be pretty comprehensive, they may be able to offer advice. I'm sure others would have some ideas. \nI would also break views down into 3 categories: philosophical views, preferential views and views regarding objective facts. \nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts and follow some rules so you let shit fester on the front page, making it clear shit posts are acceptable.", ">\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people. It's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. Friction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. Forcing people to decide which of three categories their view falls into and then following a set of rules based on that category feels like bad friction.\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. Opening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.", ">\n\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people.\n\nIt is reasonable to expect people to follow rules to engage in a useful service \n\nIt's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\n\nBut when we don't understand what someone believes or why we can't do that. \n\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. \n\nThis is actually a good thing since you have repeatedly stated you don't have adequate moderation resources. \n\nFriction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. \n\nPeople that are open minded will read the rules and if there post is taken down will follow the instructions to repost it. \n\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. \n\nThen they frankly weren't that open to it in the first place. \n\nOpening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI'd say 40% plus of posts never open up to critique, they are feels over realz garbage. They not only waste time they make other posts worse by making this a place where garbage is accepted. \n\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.\n\nSometimes you need to make sacrifices to actually accomplish that mission rather than be a platform for misinformation. I would actually argue this subreddit damages the world right now.", ">\n\n\"Fresh Friday\" should start around US east coast morning because the sub is just completely dead each friday until 3pm in central european time.\n(obviously it won't make the sub super active but at least there could be one or two CMV)", ">\n\nOh good, I'm not the only one thinking that. \nLike they said, we are lucky to get a post or two before noon time EST.", ">\n\nHas there been any thought of a sort of automod post on the most common repeated topics? Or a sticky post/wiki with \"common CMV subjects\" for people to read through?\nIt gets tiring for the regular visitors here to repeatedly see the same topics posted, when they've been discussed to death and this new post has nothing different about the last one.\nA sort of \"This appears to be a commonly discussed subject, please check out these other similar CMV's where the OP's view was changed.\" Something to hopefully encourage folks to look at the common arguments and either rethink their own position or realize how their view is different and provide a more interesting/different take on the subject?", ">\n\nThose are already posted when someone submits a thread on a common topic. \nWe don't remove the thread, as we see CMVs as personal to the OP, but we do let them know that other threads exist touching on the subject.", ">\n\nAlthough this has been brought up before, block abuse is still a problem. People, especially OP, using blocks in response to good faith participation (usually in response to an argument they can't respond to or pressing a question they can't answer) is not healthy for this subreddit.", ">\n\nWe know. There is nothing we can do about it. I've begged the Admins for better tools to address the problem but have gotten no response.", ">\n\nCan you do nothing even when there are multiple users reporting they have been blocked and when the blocker is explicit about having blocked people? I didn't think this problem was so bad until a current CMV post when multiple people said they had been blocked by the same user who then (according to the OP) also blocked the OP.", ">\n\nWe have a long standing policy that we don't act on things we can't personally verify as true. This isn't to say that we don't trust you specifically, but people do lie; I've had people submit photoshopped screencaps to try and get people banned (the idiot photoshopped me without realizing I was a mod, so that didn't work out great for them). If we can't see it with our own eyes, we don't take action.\nIf we start taking a user's word for something, it becomes far too easy to weaponize and exploit.", ">\n\nIf a user is saying they have blocked people in their own public comments, does this not qualify as something you can personally verify as true?", ">\n\nIf the user themselves says that they blocked another user, then yes, we will take that into account. We remove comments like that for Rule 3.", ">\n\nOkay: I will report the instance I am aware of for a rule 3 violation. Thanks.", ">\n\nI feel like there should be some sort of rule where an OP has to read some basic information about gender-related issues before posting about them, so often there are CMVs about gender topics that could have their view changed by a 20 second google. It would be nice if the OPs posting about gender had at least a basic awareness of what happens.\nFor example, today there was a post about teens transitioning and the OP had no idea puberty blockers even existed", ">\n\nNot everyone has a rational basis for what they believe. If you can educate them by providing evidence that they didn't know was out there, isn't that a good thing?", ">\n\nout of curiosity, what changes have been put into place because of this bimonthly feedback here if any?\nI'm also curious what could be done about threads that have hundreds of replies, and an OP who is clearly there and responding, and then the thread just goes away because \"You must demonstrate you are open to the view changing\".\nWhat criteria is ever used for demonstrating this? Perhaps when a thread is hundreds of replies deep, there must clearly be a reason for the removal, not just a 'vibe'... why not at least put that reason in there instead of just removing and saying \"Rule 2\"?", ">\n\n\nwhat changes have been put into place because of this bimonthly feedback here if any?\n\nThere have been a few. Off the top of my head, we've made adjustments to how we handle the influx of gender-related posts and the Rule B pre-removal message is a direct result of suggestions here.\nThe problem is that we don't get a ton of actionable feedback from folks. People either ask for things that fundamentally change what CMV is (which we won't do) or things that aren't realistically possible (due to Reddit limitations or lack of developers for custom bots).\nWe have these threads because we want to listen, but not every suggestion is something we'll accept.\n\nWhat criteria is ever used for demonstrating this?\n\nThe Rule B wiki has a very long list of the criteria we use to evaluate that rule.\n\nwhy not at least put that reason in there\n\nWe'd like to do that, but we simply don't have the manpower to go through and provide specific examples for every removal. Frankly, we already struggle to keep up with the workload here, so anything that increases that workload isn't something we can consider until we get a significant number of moderators.", ">\n\n\nOff the top of my head, we've made adjustments to how we handle the influx of gender-related posts\n\nCan you expand on this? What adjustments have been made?\nI used to really enjoy this subreddit, but have lately been feeling that the constant posts about gender (which inevitably are either pushing some hateful rhetoric or get filled up with it in the comments) have been taxing on my mental state and I've had to begin avoiding coming here all together.", ">\n\nWe limit posts on gender-related topics to a single active post per day. Trust me, there are a lot more that try to get through that we stop. We don't get them all (sometimes one gets through that we don't see) but I'd guess that we end up pulling 2/3 of the gender stuff that gets posted. We are also much more heavily policing off-topic gender rants in posts not about that topic (under Rule 5).\nI get that it is taxing, but one of our core values is that we, as the moderation team, don't decide what views are off-limits. We won't ban a topic entirely (save the few that are listed in Rule D) so there will always be gender-related posts here.", ">\n\nOut of curiosity, why is the most recent post perma locked? I noticed it’s locked with loads is disinformation still up within the post, and since it’s locked it’s upvotes have increased 25%, leaving it as the number one post for days. How does leaving this locked topic with loads of disinformation at the top of your sub help improve its function?", ">\n\nThere are hundreds of reports we are still trying to evaluate and clean up. The number of rule violations was overwhelming our team, so we had to pause it until we can get it back under control.", ">\n\nDo you think it’s working that you are upholding your ideas of a CMV sub and people come in here spreading more disinformation than you can handle? To the point where you have to leave it up, exposing untold numbers of visitors to said disinformation? It appears to me that this sub is very prone to the social media version of ‘the Gish gallop’.", ">\n\nOur stance is that it is not up to us as the moderation team to determine what is or is not the misinformation. That is up to the users in the individual threads.\nWe are forced to lock maybe one post a month because we are overwhelmed. It isn't a significant problem in our eyes.", ">\n\nWhy isn't it up to you? Someone says something which is verifiably wrong, proven by research, and you don't have the ability to declare that disinformation? There's a very clear difference between misinformation and disinformation, and I would suggest that your sub has a massive issue with the second moreso than the first. How does it improve your sub to have a mod team which is so hands off that you allow people to spread straight lies?", ">\n\nOur ethos is that moderators are not the arbiters of truth. We don't decide what views are right or wrong - this isn't our role. Our role is to keep things civil and on topic; its the role of our users to argue the information presented in threads.\nThis is a foundational principle of CMV and isn't going to change.", ">\n\nNot sure about solutions but it feels like every other post where someone hasn't understood the sub, they see all the posts roasting and dismantling their position and just delete their post rather than award deltas or offer counter arguments.\nIs it possible to block deletion? Or to have a community system of deltas for people who should have had them but didn't?", ">\n\n\nIs it possible to block deletion?\n\nSadly, no. Reddit doesn't allow us to disable deletions.\nWe do try and keep track of them in our notes and we use it as evidence if a user is reaching the threshold for a ban.\n\nOr to have a community system of deltas for people who should have had them but didn't?\n\nWe really don't want to do that. Deltas are about the OP's view and what made their view change, so any system were someone other than the OP decides that an argument should have been good enough for a view-change isn't something we want to implement as it would cheapen deltas.", ">\n\nWhat about a second metric for how many times you contributed to an OP rage quitting? \"Sigmas\"", ">\n\nI know it’s not possible, but I often joke to myself that I wish there was a way to track wagers on whether or not a post will be removed for a rule B violation.\nBecause there are some that are so obviously soap boxing that I don’t even bother trying to change their view, and just grab the popcorn and wait.", ">\n\nSometimes you can just sense the rule B violation approaching from the language in the post, or their first reply.\nI think that once a post has been removed for rule B mods should stop enforcing the rules so that everyone can roast them." ]
> Plus there isn't any benefit to it. While making fun of an OP may make you feel better, it doesn't help the core mission of the sub.	[ "So first off, I realize there’s probably not much that can be done about this, so this mostly me just venting.\nBut theres several common occurrences on this sub that I frequently see that rub me the wrong way:\n\n\nThe personal therapy posts. I’ve always felt that this sub is supposed to be about changing peoples views they have about some aspect of how the world works. But there are a lot of posts where it’s clearly people just looking for some kind of therapy/validation for their personal situation. “Change my view that my life doesn’t suck” or stuff that’s more meant for an r/AmITheAsshole kind of sub.\n\n\nThe broad stroke generalizations based solely on personal anecdotes. I’ve also seen a lot of posts where someone will make an incredibly broad stroke generalization based on their single data point personal anecdote, and all it would reasonably take to change their view and prove them wrong is someone else’s personal anecdote demonstrating contrary to their point. \n\n\nJust the other day I saw some post where someone was basically like “I never got any use out of student clubs, therefore they are of no good to anybody, and should be banned.” There were immediately countless other people chiming in with their equally anecdotal stories that they saw great benefit from clubs at schools, so clearly OP is objectively wrong, and it should be an open and shut case, but the person wouldn’t change their view. Eventually they awarded a delta on some minor technicality, but I had jumped in to the convo after the delta had been awarded, and they were still rigidly holding on to their original view. Which brings me to my next point:\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. It feels like a loophole that often gets exploited so people can soapbox. Again, don’t know what can be done, but it’s annoying nonetheless\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting. Paragraphs exist for a reason, and it’s really annoying when the OP is this MASSIVE wall of text with no paragraph breaks.\n\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting. I know that y’all have no control over it, but in my opinion, downvoting is meant to be used to filter out spam and obvious trolls. \n\n\nBut in my experience the Reddit hive mind loves to just pound on the downvote button simply because someone disagrees with them, and once a comment has a couple of negative points, the Reddit hive mind loves to gang up on a slightly downvoted comment and downvote it into oblivion, until it eventually gets hidden. In a place that is supposed to be about open, rational and civil discourse, it’s frankly disrespectful. Again, I know that you have no control over it, but there are some subs that do have sticky messages discouraging downvoting precisely for this reason.\nThose are just some thoughts, and mostly just me venting. I understand that y’all don’t get paid, and I appreciate the work that you do.", ">\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. \n\nReport those for Rule B. A minor technicality delta isn't protection from a Rule B removal. We often do remove posts that try to protect against removal using deltas like this.\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\n\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting.\n\nNo one reads stickies and no matter what we try, Redditors won't use downvotes correctly. We'd disable them entirely if we could, but Reddit won't let us.", ">\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nSure there is, make some rules about formatting and take down posts that don't follow them. Plenty of other subs manage it just fine.", ">\n\nI mean, we do have rules about formatting, but those are 100% objective. Rule A requires 500+ characters, while Rule C requires the title to begin with “CMV:”. I’m not sure how to make such a rule for paragraphs that either could be automated or wouldn’t be time-consuming to moderate. What is your suggestion?", ">\n\nI don't personally moderate any subreddits and I am not familiar with the tools available to do so. Perhaps you could reach out to the moderators of other subreddits that do have post formatting requirements to determine what strategies they use to enforce them. \nr/HobbyDrama is fairly strict that your post must be pretty comprehensive, they may be able to offer advice. I'm sure others would have some ideas. \nI would also break views down into 3 categories: philosophical views, preferential views and views regarding objective facts. \nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts and follow some rules so you let shit fester on the front page, making it clear shit posts are acceptable.", ">\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people. It's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. Friction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. Forcing people to decide which of three categories their view falls into and then following a set of rules based on that category feels like bad friction.\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. Opening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.", ">\n\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people.\n\nIt is reasonable to expect people to follow rules to engage in a useful service \n\nIt's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\n\nBut when we don't understand what someone believes or why we can't do that. \n\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. \n\nThis is actually a good thing since you have repeatedly stated you don't have adequate moderation resources. \n\nFriction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. \n\nPeople that are open minded will read the rules and if there post is taken down will follow the instructions to repost it. \n\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. \n\nThen they frankly weren't that open to it in the first place. \n\nOpening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI'd say 40% plus of posts never open up to critique, they are feels over realz garbage. They not only waste time they make other posts worse by making this a place where garbage is accepted. \n\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.\n\nSometimes you need to make sacrifices to actually accomplish that mission rather than be a platform for misinformation. I would actually argue this subreddit damages the world right now.", ">\n\n\"Fresh Friday\" should start around US east coast morning because the sub is just completely dead each friday until 3pm in central european time.\n(obviously it won't make the sub super active but at least there could be one or two CMV)", ">\n\nOh good, I'm not the only one thinking that. \nLike they said, we are lucky to get a post or two before noon time EST.", ">\n\nHas there been any thought of a sort of automod post on the most common repeated topics? Or a sticky post/wiki with \"common CMV subjects\" for people to read through?\nIt gets tiring for the regular visitors here to repeatedly see the same topics posted, when they've been discussed to death and this new post has nothing different about the last one.\nA sort of \"This appears to be a commonly discussed subject, please check out these other similar CMV's where the OP's view was changed.\" Something to hopefully encourage folks to look at the common arguments and either rethink their own position or realize how their view is different and provide a more interesting/different take on the subject?", ">\n\nThose are already posted when someone submits a thread on a common topic. \nWe don't remove the thread, as we see CMVs as personal to the OP, but we do let them know that other threads exist touching on the subject.", ">\n\nAlthough this has been brought up before, block abuse is still a problem. People, especially OP, using blocks in response to good faith participation (usually in response to an argument they can't respond to or pressing a question they can't answer) is not healthy for this subreddit.", ">\n\nWe know. There is nothing we can do about it. I've begged the Admins for better tools to address the problem but have gotten no response.", ">\n\nCan you do nothing even when there are multiple users reporting they have been blocked and when the blocker is explicit about having blocked people? I didn't think this problem was so bad until a current CMV post when multiple people said they had been blocked by the same user who then (according to the OP) also blocked the OP.", ">\n\nWe have a long standing policy that we don't act on things we can't personally verify as true. This isn't to say that we don't trust you specifically, but people do lie; I've had people submit photoshopped screencaps to try and get people banned (the idiot photoshopped me without realizing I was a mod, so that didn't work out great for them). If we can't see it with our own eyes, we don't take action.\nIf we start taking a user's word for something, it becomes far too easy to weaponize and exploit.", ">\n\nIf a user is saying they have blocked people in their own public comments, does this not qualify as something you can personally verify as true?", ">\n\nIf the user themselves says that they blocked another user, then yes, we will take that into account. We remove comments like that for Rule 3.", ">\n\nOkay: I will report the instance I am aware of for a rule 3 violation. Thanks.", ">\n\nI feel like there should be some sort of rule where an OP has to read some basic information about gender-related issues before posting about them, so often there are CMVs about gender topics that could have their view changed by a 20 second google. It would be nice if the OPs posting about gender had at least a basic awareness of what happens.\nFor example, today there was a post about teens transitioning and the OP had no idea puberty blockers even existed", ">\n\nNot everyone has a rational basis for what they believe. If you can educate them by providing evidence that they didn't know was out there, isn't that a good thing?", ">\n\nout of curiosity, what changes have been put into place because of this bimonthly feedback here if any?\nI'm also curious what could be done about threads that have hundreds of replies, and an OP who is clearly there and responding, and then the thread just goes away because \"You must demonstrate you are open to the view changing\".\nWhat criteria is ever used for demonstrating this? Perhaps when a thread is hundreds of replies deep, there must clearly be a reason for the removal, not just a 'vibe'... why not at least put that reason in there instead of just removing and saying \"Rule 2\"?", ">\n\n\nwhat changes have been put into place because of this bimonthly feedback here if any?\n\nThere have been a few. Off the top of my head, we've made adjustments to how we handle the influx of gender-related posts and the Rule B pre-removal message is a direct result of suggestions here.\nThe problem is that we don't get a ton of actionable feedback from folks. People either ask for things that fundamentally change what CMV is (which we won't do) or things that aren't realistically possible (due to Reddit limitations or lack of developers for custom bots).\nWe have these threads because we want to listen, but not every suggestion is something we'll accept.\n\nWhat criteria is ever used for demonstrating this?\n\nThe Rule B wiki has a very long list of the criteria we use to evaluate that rule.\n\nwhy not at least put that reason in there\n\nWe'd like to do that, but we simply don't have the manpower to go through and provide specific examples for every removal. Frankly, we already struggle to keep up with the workload here, so anything that increases that workload isn't something we can consider until we get a significant number of moderators.", ">\n\n\nOff the top of my head, we've made adjustments to how we handle the influx of gender-related posts\n\nCan you expand on this? What adjustments have been made?\nI used to really enjoy this subreddit, but have lately been feeling that the constant posts about gender (which inevitably are either pushing some hateful rhetoric or get filled up with it in the comments) have been taxing on my mental state and I've had to begin avoiding coming here all together.", ">\n\nWe limit posts on gender-related topics to a single active post per day. Trust me, there are a lot more that try to get through that we stop. We don't get them all (sometimes one gets through that we don't see) but I'd guess that we end up pulling 2/3 of the gender stuff that gets posted. We are also much more heavily policing off-topic gender rants in posts not about that topic (under Rule 5).\nI get that it is taxing, but one of our core values is that we, as the moderation team, don't decide what views are off-limits. We won't ban a topic entirely (save the few that are listed in Rule D) so there will always be gender-related posts here.", ">\n\nOut of curiosity, why is the most recent post perma locked? I noticed it’s locked with loads is disinformation still up within the post, and since it’s locked it’s upvotes have increased 25%, leaving it as the number one post for days. How does leaving this locked topic with loads of disinformation at the top of your sub help improve its function?", ">\n\nThere are hundreds of reports we are still trying to evaluate and clean up. The number of rule violations was overwhelming our team, so we had to pause it until we can get it back under control.", ">\n\nDo you think it’s working that you are upholding your ideas of a CMV sub and people come in here spreading more disinformation than you can handle? To the point where you have to leave it up, exposing untold numbers of visitors to said disinformation? It appears to me that this sub is very prone to the social media version of ‘the Gish gallop’.", ">\n\nOur stance is that it is not up to us as the moderation team to determine what is or is not the misinformation. That is up to the users in the individual threads.\nWe are forced to lock maybe one post a month because we are overwhelmed. It isn't a significant problem in our eyes.", ">\n\nWhy isn't it up to you? Someone says something which is verifiably wrong, proven by research, and you don't have the ability to declare that disinformation? There's a very clear difference between misinformation and disinformation, and I would suggest that your sub has a massive issue with the second moreso than the first. How does it improve your sub to have a mod team which is so hands off that you allow people to spread straight lies?", ">\n\nOur ethos is that moderators are not the arbiters of truth. We don't decide what views are right or wrong - this isn't our role. Our role is to keep things civil and on topic; its the role of our users to argue the information presented in threads.\nThis is a foundational principle of CMV and isn't going to change.", ">\n\nNot sure about solutions but it feels like every other post where someone hasn't understood the sub, they see all the posts roasting and dismantling their position and just delete their post rather than award deltas or offer counter arguments.\nIs it possible to block deletion? Or to have a community system of deltas for people who should have had them but didn't?", ">\n\n\nIs it possible to block deletion?\n\nSadly, no. Reddit doesn't allow us to disable deletions.\nWe do try and keep track of them in our notes and we use it as evidence if a user is reaching the threshold for a ban.\n\nOr to have a community system of deltas for people who should have had them but didn't?\n\nWe really don't want to do that. Deltas are about the OP's view and what made their view change, so any system were someone other than the OP decides that an argument should have been good enough for a view-change isn't something we want to implement as it would cheapen deltas.", ">\n\nWhat about a second metric for how many times you contributed to an OP rage quitting? \"Sigmas\"", ">\n\nI know it’s not possible, but I often joke to myself that I wish there was a way to track wagers on whether or not a post will be removed for a rule B violation.\nBecause there are some that are so obviously soap boxing that I don’t even bother trying to change their view, and just grab the popcorn and wait.", ">\n\nSometimes you can just sense the rule B violation approaching from the language in the post, or their first reply.\nI think that once a post has been removed for rule B mods should stop enforcing the rules so that everyone can roast them.", ">\n\nThe problem is that 1) in the mod queue there's no way to easily tell if a comment came from a removed post or not, checking that for every comment would add an enormous amount of time and 2) sometimes rule B posts do get reapproved. It's rare but it does happen. So then what would happen to all those rule breaking comments. They were okay while it was down, but not okay now? Any solution there seems real bad" ]
> In general I would be a fan of looser moderation so long as the number of posts per day is relatively small. I wish I had the time to go back and really look, but I think its like 15 to 20 posts per day which survive moderation (obviously I can't count the total number, I can count what was not removed), two reasons 1 - with such a small number of posts I can decide for myself what I want to participate in. 2 - I think people generally want higher quality posts so they support more moderation. But I don't see how removing mediocre quality or being really strict about rule B for example will increase the number of really good posts. It reduces the total number of posts, but that number is already so small. 2.7 million subs and 20 posts per day? we should be getting a few hundred at least I would think. I've love to load /new and be able to pick between 20 thread from the last 30 minutes instead of 8 from the last 4 hours. If we were getting 1000 posts a day and half where trash, then by all means stricter moderation would be great. I'm just talking about as things stand right now. I think we can be pretty lose especially with the rule B, and even a little with E and D. A and C I think remaining super strict makes sense. Tl;dr i wish this sub had more content.	[ "So first off, I realize there’s probably not much that can be done about this, so this mostly me just venting.\nBut theres several common occurrences on this sub that I frequently see that rub me the wrong way:\n\n\nThe personal therapy posts. I’ve always felt that this sub is supposed to be about changing peoples views they have about some aspect of how the world works. But there are a lot of posts where it’s clearly people just looking for some kind of therapy/validation for their personal situation. “Change my view that my life doesn’t suck” or stuff that’s more meant for an r/AmITheAsshole kind of sub.\n\n\nThe broad stroke generalizations based solely on personal anecdotes. I’ve also seen a lot of posts where someone will make an incredibly broad stroke generalization based on their single data point personal anecdote, and all it would reasonably take to change their view and prove them wrong is someone else’s personal anecdote demonstrating contrary to their point. \n\n\nJust the other day I saw some post where someone was basically like “I never got any use out of student clubs, therefore they are of no good to anybody, and should be banned.” There were immediately countless other people chiming in with their equally anecdotal stories that they saw great benefit from clubs at schools, so clearly OP is objectively wrong, and it should be an open and shut case, but the person wouldn’t change their view. Eventually they awarded a delta on some minor technicality, but I had jumped in to the convo after the delta had been awarded, and they were still rigidly holding on to their original view. Which brings me to my next point:\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. It feels like a loophole that often gets exploited so people can soapbox. Again, don’t know what can be done, but it’s annoying nonetheless\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting. Paragraphs exist for a reason, and it’s really annoying when the OP is this MASSIVE wall of text with no paragraph breaks.\n\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting. I know that y’all have no control over it, but in my opinion, downvoting is meant to be used to filter out spam and obvious trolls. \n\n\nBut in my experience the Reddit hive mind loves to just pound on the downvote button simply because someone disagrees with them, and once a comment has a couple of negative points, the Reddit hive mind loves to gang up on a slightly downvoted comment and downvote it into oblivion, until it eventually gets hidden. In a place that is supposed to be about open, rational and civil discourse, it’s frankly disrespectful. Again, I know that you have no control over it, but there are some subs that do have sticky messages discouraging downvoting precisely for this reason.\nThose are just some thoughts, and mostly just me venting. I understand that y’all don’t get paid, and I appreciate the work that you do.", ">\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. \n\nReport those for Rule B. A minor technicality delta isn't protection from a Rule B removal. We often do remove posts that try to protect against removal using deltas like this.\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\n\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting.\n\nNo one reads stickies and no matter what we try, Redditors won't use downvotes correctly. We'd disable them entirely if we could, but Reddit won't let us.", ">\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nSure there is, make some rules about formatting and take down posts that don't follow them. Plenty of other subs manage it just fine.", ">\n\nI mean, we do have rules about formatting, but those are 100% objective. Rule A requires 500+ characters, while Rule C requires the title to begin with “CMV:”. I’m not sure how to make such a rule for paragraphs that either could be automated or wouldn’t be time-consuming to moderate. What is your suggestion?", ">\n\nI don't personally moderate any subreddits and I am not familiar with the tools available to do so. Perhaps you could reach out to the moderators of other subreddits that do have post formatting requirements to determine what strategies they use to enforce them. \nr/HobbyDrama is fairly strict that your post must be pretty comprehensive, they may be able to offer advice. I'm sure others would have some ideas. \nI would also break views down into 3 categories: philosophical views, preferential views and views regarding objective facts. \nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts and follow some rules so you let shit fester on the front page, making it clear shit posts are acceptable.", ">\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people. It's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. Friction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. Forcing people to decide which of three categories their view falls into and then following a set of rules based on that category feels like bad friction.\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. Opening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.", ">\n\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people.\n\nIt is reasonable to expect people to follow rules to engage in a useful service \n\nIt's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\n\nBut when we don't understand what someone believes or why we can't do that. \n\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. \n\nThis is actually a good thing since you have repeatedly stated you don't have adequate moderation resources. \n\nFriction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. \n\nPeople that are open minded will read the rules and if there post is taken down will follow the instructions to repost it. \n\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. \n\nThen they frankly weren't that open to it in the first place. \n\nOpening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI'd say 40% plus of posts never open up to critique, they are feels over realz garbage. They not only waste time they make other posts worse by making this a place where garbage is accepted. \n\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.\n\nSometimes you need to make sacrifices to actually accomplish that mission rather than be a platform for misinformation. I would actually argue this subreddit damages the world right now.", ">\n\n\"Fresh Friday\" should start around US east coast morning because the sub is just completely dead each friday until 3pm in central european time.\n(obviously it won't make the sub super active but at least there could be one or two CMV)", ">\n\nOh good, I'm not the only one thinking that. \nLike they said, we are lucky to get a post or two before noon time EST.", ">\n\nHas there been any thought of a sort of automod post on the most common repeated topics? Or a sticky post/wiki with \"common CMV subjects\" for people to read through?\nIt gets tiring for the regular visitors here to repeatedly see the same topics posted, when they've been discussed to death and this new post has nothing different about the last one.\nA sort of \"This appears to be a commonly discussed subject, please check out these other similar CMV's where the OP's view was changed.\" Something to hopefully encourage folks to look at the common arguments and either rethink their own position or realize how their view is different and provide a more interesting/different take on the subject?", ">\n\nThose are already posted when someone submits a thread on a common topic. \nWe don't remove the thread, as we see CMVs as personal to the OP, but we do let them know that other threads exist touching on the subject.", ">\n\nAlthough this has been brought up before, block abuse is still a problem. People, especially OP, using blocks in response to good faith participation (usually in response to an argument they can't respond to or pressing a question they can't answer) is not healthy for this subreddit.", ">\n\nWe know. There is nothing we can do about it. I've begged the Admins for better tools to address the problem but have gotten no response.", ">\n\nCan you do nothing even when there are multiple users reporting they have been blocked and when the blocker is explicit about having blocked people? I didn't think this problem was so bad until a current CMV post when multiple people said they had been blocked by the same user who then (according to the OP) also blocked the OP.", ">\n\nWe have a long standing policy that we don't act on things we can't personally verify as true. This isn't to say that we don't trust you specifically, but people do lie; I've had people submit photoshopped screencaps to try and get people banned (the idiot photoshopped me without realizing I was a mod, so that didn't work out great for them). If we can't see it with our own eyes, we don't take action.\nIf we start taking a user's word for something, it becomes far too easy to weaponize and exploit.", ">\n\nIf a user is saying they have blocked people in their own public comments, does this not qualify as something you can personally verify as true?", ">\n\nIf the user themselves says that they blocked another user, then yes, we will take that into account. We remove comments like that for Rule 3.", ">\n\nOkay: I will report the instance I am aware of for a rule 3 violation. Thanks.", ">\n\nI feel like there should be some sort of rule where an OP has to read some basic information about gender-related issues before posting about them, so often there are CMVs about gender topics that could have their view changed by a 20 second google. It would be nice if the OPs posting about gender had at least a basic awareness of what happens.\nFor example, today there was a post about teens transitioning and the OP had no idea puberty blockers even existed", ">\n\nNot everyone has a rational basis for what they believe. If you can educate them by providing evidence that they didn't know was out there, isn't that a good thing?", ">\n\nout of curiosity, what changes have been put into place because of this bimonthly feedback here if any?\nI'm also curious what could be done about threads that have hundreds of replies, and an OP who is clearly there and responding, and then the thread just goes away because \"You must demonstrate you are open to the view changing\".\nWhat criteria is ever used for demonstrating this? Perhaps when a thread is hundreds of replies deep, there must clearly be a reason for the removal, not just a 'vibe'... why not at least put that reason in there instead of just removing and saying \"Rule 2\"?", ">\n\n\nwhat changes have been put into place because of this bimonthly feedback here if any?\n\nThere have been a few. Off the top of my head, we've made adjustments to how we handle the influx of gender-related posts and the Rule B pre-removal message is a direct result of suggestions here.\nThe problem is that we don't get a ton of actionable feedback from folks. People either ask for things that fundamentally change what CMV is (which we won't do) or things that aren't realistically possible (due to Reddit limitations or lack of developers for custom bots).\nWe have these threads because we want to listen, but not every suggestion is something we'll accept.\n\nWhat criteria is ever used for demonstrating this?\n\nThe Rule B wiki has a very long list of the criteria we use to evaluate that rule.\n\nwhy not at least put that reason in there\n\nWe'd like to do that, but we simply don't have the manpower to go through and provide specific examples for every removal. Frankly, we already struggle to keep up with the workload here, so anything that increases that workload isn't something we can consider until we get a significant number of moderators.", ">\n\n\nOff the top of my head, we've made adjustments to how we handle the influx of gender-related posts\n\nCan you expand on this? What adjustments have been made?\nI used to really enjoy this subreddit, but have lately been feeling that the constant posts about gender (which inevitably are either pushing some hateful rhetoric or get filled up with it in the comments) have been taxing on my mental state and I've had to begin avoiding coming here all together.", ">\n\nWe limit posts on gender-related topics to a single active post per day. Trust me, there are a lot more that try to get through that we stop. We don't get them all (sometimes one gets through that we don't see) but I'd guess that we end up pulling 2/3 of the gender stuff that gets posted. We are also much more heavily policing off-topic gender rants in posts not about that topic (under Rule 5).\nI get that it is taxing, but one of our core values is that we, as the moderation team, don't decide what views are off-limits. We won't ban a topic entirely (save the few that are listed in Rule D) so there will always be gender-related posts here.", ">\n\nOut of curiosity, why is the most recent post perma locked? I noticed it’s locked with loads is disinformation still up within the post, and since it’s locked it’s upvotes have increased 25%, leaving it as the number one post for days. How does leaving this locked topic with loads of disinformation at the top of your sub help improve its function?", ">\n\nThere are hundreds of reports we are still trying to evaluate and clean up. The number of rule violations was overwhelming our team, so we had to pause it until we can get it back under control.", ">\n\nDo you think it’s working that you are upholding your ideas of a CMV sub and people come in here spreading more disinformation than you can handle? To the point where you have to leave it up, exposing untold numbers of visitors to said disinformation? It appears to me that this sub is very prone to the social media version of ‘the Gish gallop’.", ">\n\nOur stance is that it is not up to us as the moderation team to determine what is or is not the misinformation. That is up to the users in the individual threads.\nWe are forced to lock maybe one post a month because we are overwhelmed. It isn't a significant problem in our eyes.", ">\n\nWhy isn't it up to you? Someone says something which is verifiably wrong, proven by research, and you don't have the ability to declare that disinformation? There's a very clear difference between misinformation and disinformation, and I would suggest that your sub has a massive issue with the second moreso than the first. How does it improve your sub to have a mod team which is so hands off that you allow people to spread straight lies?", ">\n\nOur ethos is that moderators are not the arbiters of truth. We don't decide what views are right or wrong - this isn't our role. Our role is to keep things civil and on topic; its the role of our users to argue the information presented in threads.\nThis is a foundational principle of CMV and isn't going to change.", ">\n\nNot sure about solutions but it feels like every other post where someone hasn't understood the sub, they see all the posts roasting and dismantling their position and just delete their post rather than award deltas or offer counter arguments.\nIs it possible to block deletion? Or to have a community system of deltas for people who should have had them but didn't?", ">\n\n\nIs it possible to block deletion?\n\nSadly, no. Reddit doesn't allow us to disable deletions.\nWe do try and keep track of them in our notes and we use it as evidence if a user is reaching the threshold for a ban.\n\nOr to have a community system of deltas for people who should have had them but didn't?\n\nWe really don't want to do that. Deltas are about the OP's view and what made their view change, so any system were someone other than the OP decides that an argument should have been good enough for a view-change isn't something we want to implement as it would cheapen deltas.", ">\n\nWhat about a second metric for how many times you contributed to an OP rage quitting? \"Sigmas\"", ">\n\nI know it’s not possible, but I often joke to myself that I wish there was a way to track wagers on whether or not a post will be removed for a rule B violation.\nBecause there are some that are so obviously soap boxing that I don’t even bother trying to change their view, and just grab the popcorn and wait.", ">\n\nSometimes you can just sense the rule B violation approaching from the language in the post, or their first reply.\nI think that once a post has been removed for rule B mods should stop enforcing the rules so that everyone can roast them.", ">\n\nThe problem is that 1) in the mod queue there's no way to easily tell if a comment came from a removed post or not, checking that for every comment would add an enormous amount of time and 2) sometimes rule B posts do get reapproved. It's rare but it does happen. So then what would happen to all those rule breaking comments. They were okay while it was down, but not okay now? Any solution there seems real bad", ">\n\nPlus there isn't any benefit to it. While making fun of an OP may make you feel better, it doesn't help the core mission of the sub." ]
> I'm not sure what is to be done about that without severely compromising quality. I looked through the logs of the last day and we had about 70 posts removed. Only about 10 of those were from human moderators (violations like Rules B and E). The other 90% were for two primary reasons: They were too short to satisfy Rule A. A post that short isn't going to be high quality They were from low/negative karma accounts. We put that rule in place so that brand new users (and trolls) don't post here until they understand what we are about. I'd be happy to see a higher volume of posts from people, but the reason that most posts get removed are pretty valid.	[ "So first off, I realize there’s probably not much that can be done about this, so this mostly me just venting.\nBut theres several common occurrences on this sub that I frequently see that rub me the wrong way:\n\n\nThe personal therapy posts. I’ve always felt that this sub is supposed to be about changing peoples views they have about some aspect of how the world works. But there are a lot of posts where it’s clearly people just looking for some kind of therapy/validation for their personal situation. “Change my view that my life doesn’t suck” or stuff that’s more meant for an r/AmITheAsshole kind of sub.\n\n\nThe broad stroke generalizations based solely on personal anecdotes. I’ve also seen a lot of posts where someone will make an incredibly broad stroke generalization based on their single data point personal anecdote, and all it would reasonably take to change their view and prove them wrong is someone else’s personal anecdote demonstrating contrary to their point. \n\n\nJust the other day I saw some post where someone was basically like “I never got any use out of student clubs, therefore they are of no good to anybody, and should be banned.” There were immediately countless other people chiming in with their equally anecdotal stories that they saw great benefit from clubs at schools, so clearly OP is objectively wrong, and it should be an open and shut case, but the person wouldn’t change their view. Eventually they awarded a delta on some minor technicality, but I had jumped in to the convo after the delta had been awarded, and they were still rigidly holding on to their original view. Which brings me to my next point:\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. It feels like a loophole that often gets exploited so people can soapbox. Again, don’t know what can be done, but it’s annoying nonetheless\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting. Paragraphs exist for a reason, and it’s really annoying when the OP is this MASSIVE wall of text with no paragraph breaks.\n\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting. I know that y’all have no control over it, but in my opinion, downvoting is meant to be used to filter out spam and obvious trolls. \n\n\nBut in my experience the Reddit hive mind loves to just pound on the downvote button simply because someone disagrees with them, and once a comment has a couple of negative points, the Reddit hive mind loves to gang up on a slightly downvoted comment and downvote it into oblivion, until it eventually gets hidden. In a place that is supposed to be about open, rational and civil discourse, it’s frankly disrespectful. Again, I know that you have no control over it, but there are some subs that do have sticky messages discouraging downvoting precisely for this reason.\nThose are just some thoughts, and mostly just me venting. I understand that y’all don’t get paid, and I appreciate the work that you do.", ">\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. \n\nReport those for Rule B. A minor technicality delta isn't protection from a Rule B removal. We often do remove posts that try to protect against removal using deltas like this.\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\n\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting.\n\nNo one reads stickies and no matter what we try, Redditors won't use downvotes correctly. We'd disable them entirely if we could, but Reddit won't let us.", ">\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nSure there is, make some rules about formatting and take down posts that don't follow them. Plenty of other subs manage it just fine.", ">\n\nI mean, we do have rules about formatting, but those are 100% objective. Rule A requires 500+ characters, while Rule C requires the title to begin with “CMV:”. I’m not sure how to make such a rule for paragraphs that either could be automated or wouldn’t be time-consuming to moderate. What is your suggestion?", ">\n\nI don't personally moderate any subreddits and I am not familiar with the tools available to do so. Perhaps you could reach out to the moderators of other subreddits that do have post formatting requirements to determine what strategies they use to enforce them. \nr/HobbyDrama is fairly strict that your post must be pretty comprehensive, they may be able to offer advice. I'm sure others would have some ideas. \nI would also break views down into 3 categories: philosophical views, preferential views and views regarding objective facts. \nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts and follow some rules so you let shit fester on the front page, making it clear shit posts are acceptable.", ">\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people. It's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. Friction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. Forcing people to decide which of three categories their view falls into and then following a set of rules based on that category feels like bad friction.\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. Opening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.", ">\n\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people.\n\nIt is reasonable to expect people to follow rules to engage in a useful service \n\nIt's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\n\nBut when we don't understand what someone believes or why we can't do that. \n\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. \n\nThis is actually a good thing since you have repeatedly stated you don't have adequate moderation resources. \n\nFriction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. \n\nPeople that are open minded will read the rules and if there post is taken down will follow the instructions to repost it. \n\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. \n\nThen they frankly weren't that open to it in the first place. \n\nOpening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI'd say 40% plus of posts never open up to critique, they are feels over realz garbage. They not only waste time they make other posts worse by making this a place where garbage is accepted. \n\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.\n\nSometimes you need to make sacrifices to actually accomplish that mission rather than be a platform for misinformation. I would actually argue this subreddit damages the world right now.", ">\n\n\"Fresh Friday\" should start around US east coast morning because the sub is just completely dead each friday until 3pm in central european time.\n(obviously it won't make the sub super active but at least there could be one or two CMV)", ">\n\nOh good, I'm not the only one thinking that. \nLike they said, we are lucky to get a post or two before noon time EST.", ">\n\nHas there been any thought of a sort of automod post on the most common repeated topics? Or a sticky post/wiki with \"common CMV subjects\" for people to read through?\nIt gets tiring for the regular visitors here to repeatedly see the same topics posted, when they've been discussed to death and this new post has nothing different about the last one.\nA sort of \"This appears to be a commonly discussed subject, please check out these other similar CMV's where the OP's view was changed.\" Something to hopefully encourage folks to look at the common arguments and either rethink their own position or realize how their view is different and provide a more interesting/different take on the subject?", ">\n\nThose are already posted when someone submits a thread on a common topic. \nWe don't remove the thread, as we see CMVs as personal to the OP, but we do let them know that other threads exist touching on the subject.", ">\n\nAlthough this has been brought up before, block abuse is still a problem. People, especially OP, using blocks in response to good faith participation (usually in response to an argument they can't respond to or pressing a question they can't answer) is not healthy for this subreddit.", ">\n\nWe know. There is nothing we can do about it. I've begged the Admins for better tools to address the problem but have gotten no response.", ">\n\nCan you do nothing even when there are multiple users reporting they have been blocked and when the blocker is explicit about having blocked people? I didn't think this problem was so bad until a current CMV post when multiple people said they had been blocked by the same user who then (according to the OP) also blocked the OP.", ">\n\nWe have a long standing policy that we don't act on things we can't personally verify as true. This isn't to say that we don't trust you specifically, but people do lie; I've had people submit photoshopped screencaps to try and get people banned (the idiot photoshopped me without realizing I was a mod, so that didn't work out great for them). If we can't see it with our own eyes, we don't take action.\nIf we start taking a user's word for something, it becomes far too easy to weaponize and exploit.", ">\n\nIf a user is saying they have blocked people in their own public comments, does this not qualify as something you can personally verify as true?", ">\n\nIf the user themselves says that they blocked another user, then yes, we will take that into account. We remove comments like that for Rule 3.", ">\n\nOkay: I will report the instance I am aware of for a rule 3 violation. Thanks.", ">\n\nI feel like there should be some sort of rule where an OP has to read some basic information about gender-related issues before posting about them, so often there are CMVs about gender topics that could have their view changed by a 20 second google. It would be nice if the OPs posting about gender had at least a basic awareness of what happens.\nFor example, today there was a post about teens transitioning and the OP had no idea puberty blockers even existed", ">\n\nNot everyone has a rational basis for what they believe. If you can educate them by providing evidence that they didn't know was out there, isn't that a good thing?", ">\n\nout of curiosity, what changes have been put into place because of this bimonthly feedback here if any?\nI'm also curious what could be done about threads that have hundreds of replies, and an OP who is clearly there and responding, and then the thread just goes away because \"You must demonstrate you are open to the view changing\".\nWhat criteria is ever used for demonstrating this? Perhaps when a thread is hundreds of replies deep, there must clearly be a reason for the removal, not just a 'vibe'... why not at least put that reason in there instead of just removing and saying \"Rule 2\"?", ">\n\n\nwhat changes have been put into place because of this bimonthly feedback here if any?\n\nThere have been a few. Off the top of my head, we've made adjustments to how we handle the influx of gender-related posts and the Rule B pre-removal message is a direct result of suggestions here.\nThe problem is that we don't get a ton of actionable feedback from folks. People either ask for things that fundamentally change what CMV is (which we won't do) or things that aren't realistically possible (due to Reddit limitations or lack of developers for custom bots).\nWe have these threads because we want to listen, but not every suggestion is something we'll accept.\n\nWhat criteria is ever used for demonstrating this?\n\nThe Rule B wiki has a very long list of the criteria we use to evaluate that rule.\n\nwhy not at least put that reason in there\n\nWe'd like to do that, but we simply don't have the manpower to go through and provide specific examples for every removal. Frankly, we already struggle to keep up with the workload here, so anything that increases that workload isn't something we can consider until we get a significant number of moderators.", ">\n\n\nOff the top of my head, we've made adjustments to how we handle the influx of gender-related posts\n\nCan you expand on this? What adjustments have been made?\nI used to really enjoy this subreddit, but have lately been feeling that the constant posts about gender (which inevitably are either pushing some hateful rhetoric or get filled up with it in the comments) have been taxing on my mental state and I've had to begin avoiding coming here all together.", ">\n\nWe limit posts on gender-related topics to a single active post per day. Trust me, there are a lot more that try to get through that we stop. We don't get them all (sometimes one gets through that we don't see) but I'd guess that we end up pulling 2/3 of the gender stuff that gets posted. We are also much more heavily policing off-topic gender rants in posts not about that topic (under Rule 5).\nI get that it is taxing, but one of our core values is that we, as the moderation team, don't decide what views are off-limits. We won't ban a topic entirely (save the few that are listed in Rule D) so there will always be gender-related posts here.", ">\n\nOut of curiosity, why is the most recent post perma locked? I noticed it’s locked with loads is disinformation still up within the post, and since it’s locked it’s upvotes have increased 25%, leaving it as the number one post for days. How does leaving this locked topic with loads of disinformation at the top of your sub help improve its function?", ">\n\nThere are hundreds of reports we are still trying to evaluate and clean up. The number of rule violations was overwhelming our team, so we had to pause it until we can get it back under control.", ">\n\nDo you think it’s working that you are upholding your ideas of a CMV sub and people come in here spreading more disinformation than you can handle? To the point where you have to leave it up, exposing untold numbers of visitors to said disinformation? It appears to me that this sub is very prone to the social media version of ‘the Gish gallop’.", ">\n\nOur stance is that it is not up to us as the moderation team to determine what is or is not the misinformation. That is up to the users in the individual threads.\nWe are forced to lock maybe one post a month because we are overwhelmed. It isn't a significant problem in our eyes.", ">\n\nWhy isn't it up to you? Someone says something which is verifiably wrong, proven by research, and you don't have the ability to declare that disinformation? There's a very clear difference between misinformation and disinformation, and I would suggest that your sub has a massive issue with the second moreso than the first. How does it improve your sub to have a mod team which is so hands off that you allow people to spread straight lies?", ">\n\nOur ethos is that moderators are not the arbiters of truth. We don't decide what views are right or wrong - this isn't our role. Our role is to keep things civil and on topic; its the role of our users to argue the information presented in threads.\nThis is a foundational principle of CMV and isn't going to change.", ">\n\nNot sure about solutions but it feels like every other post where someone hasn't understood the sub, they see all the posts roasting and dismantling their position and just delete their post rather than award deltas or offer counter arguments.\nIs it possible to block deletion? Or to have a community system of deltas for people who should have had them but didn't?", ">\n\n\nIs it possible to block deletion?\n\nSadly, no. Reddit doesn't allow us to disable deletions.\nWe do try and keep track of them in our notes and we use it as evidence if a user is reaching the threshold for a ban.\n\nOr to have a community system of deltas for people who should have had them but didn't?\n\nWe really don't want to do that. Deltas are about the OP's view and what made their view change, so any system were someone other than the OP decides that an argument should have been good enough for a view-change isn't something we want to implement as it would cheapen deltas.", ">\n\nWhat about a second metric for how many times you contributed to an OP rage quitting? \"Sigmas\"", ">\n\nI know it’s not possible, but I often joke to myself that I wish there was a way to track wagers on whether or not a post will be removed for a rule B violation.\nBecause there are some that are so obviously soap boxing that I don’t even bother trying to change their view, and just grab the popcorn and wait.", ">\n\nSometimes you can just sense the rule B violation approaching from the language in the post, or their first reply.\nI think that once a post has been removed for rule B mods should stop enforcing the rules so that everyone can roast them.", ">\n\nThe problem is that 1) in the mod queue there's no way to easily tell if a comment came from a removed post or not, checking that for every comment would add an enormous amount of time and 2) sometimes rule B posts do get reapproved. It's rare but it does happen. So then what would happen to all those rule breaking comments. They were okay while it was down, but not okay now? Any solution there seems real bad", ">\n\nPlus there isn't any benefit to it. While making fun of an OP may make you feel better, it doesn't help the core mission of the sub.", ">\n\nIn general I would be a fan of looser moderation so long as the number of posts per day is relatively small. I wish I had the time to go back and really look, but I think its like 15 to 20 posts per day which survive moderation (obviously I can't count the total number, I can count what was not removed),\ntwo reasons\n\n\n1 - with such a small number of posts I can decide for myself what I want to participate in.\n\n\n2 - I think people generally want higher quality posts so they support more moderation. But I don't see how removing mediocre quality or being really strict about rule B for example will increase the number of really good posts. It reduces the total number of posts, but that number is already so small.\n\n\n2.7 million subs and 20 posts per day? we should be getting a few hundred at least I would think. I've love to load /new and be able to pick between 20 thread from the last 30 minutes instead of 8 from the last 4 hours.\nIf we were getting 1000 posts a day and half where trash, then by all means stricter moderation would be great. I'm just talking about as things stand right now. I think we can be pretty lose especially with the rule B, and even a little with E and D. A and C I think remaining super strict makes sense. \nTl;dr i wish this sub had more content." ]
>	[ "So first off, I realize there’s probably not much that can be done about this, so this mostly me just venting.\nBut theres several common occurrences on this sub that I frequently see that rub me the wrong way:\n\n\nThe personal therapy posts. I’ve always felt that this sub is supposed to be about changing peoples views they have about some aspect of how the world works. But there are a lot of posts where it’s clearly people just looking for some kind of therapy/validation for their personal situation. “Change my view that my life doesn’t suck” or stuff that’s more meant for an r/AmITheAsshole kind of sub.\n\n\nThe broad stroke generalizations based solely on personal anecdotes. I’ve also seen a lot of posts where someone will make an incredibly broad stroke generalization based on their single data point personal anecdote, and all it would reasonably take to change their view and prove them wrong is someone else’s personal anecdote demonstrating contrary to their point. \n\n\nJust the other day I saw some post where someone was basically like “I never got any use out of student clubs, therefore they are of no good to anybody, and should be banned.” There were immediately countless other people chiming in with their equally anecdotal stories that they saw great benefit from clubs at schools, so clearly OP is objectively wrong, and it should be an open and shut case, but the person wouldn’t change their view. Eventually they awarded a delta on some minor technicality, but I had jumped in to the convo after the delta had been awarded, and they were still rigidly holding on to their original view. Which brings me to my next point:\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. It feels like a loophole that often gets exploited so people can soapbox. Again, don’t know what can be done, but it’s annoying nonetheless\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting. Paragraphs exist for a reason, and it’s really annoying when the OP is this MASSIVE wall of text with no paragraph breaks.\n\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting. I know that y’all have no control over it, but in my opinion, downvoting is meant to be used to filter out spam and obvious trolls. \n\n\nBut in my experience the Reddit hive mind loves to just pound on the downvote button simply because someone disagrees with them, and once a comment has a couple of negative points, the Reddit hive mind loves to gang up on a slightly downvoted comment and downvote it into oblivion, until it eventually gets hidden. In a place that is supposed to be about open, rational and civil discourse, it’s frankly disrespectful. Again, I know that you have no control over it, but there are some subs that do have sticky messages discouraging downvoting precisely for this reason.\nThose are just some thoughts, and mostly just me venting. I understand that y’all don’t get paid, and I appreciate the work that you do.", ">\n\n\nPeople who award a delta for a minor technicality so their post doesn’t get taken down, but otherwise haven’t changed their view. \n\nReport those for Rule B. A minor technicality delta isn't protection from a Rule B removal. We often do remove posts that try to protect against removal using deltas like this.\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\n\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nI wish there was a sticky message at the top of each post to discourage downvoting.\n\nNo one reads stickies and no matter what we try, Redditors won't use downvotes correctly. We'd disable them entirely if we could, but Reddit won't let us.", ">\n\n\nThis is minor but I wish there were some rules about formatting.\nNot much we can do about that one, sadly.\n\nSure there is, make some rules about formatting and take down posts that don't follow them. Plenty of other subs manage it just fine.", ">\n\nI mean, we do have rules about formatting, but those are 100% objective. Rule A requires 500+ characters, while Rule C requires the title to begin with “CMV:”. I’m not sure how to make such a rule for paragraphs that either could be automated or wouldn’t be time-consuming to moderate. What is your suggestion?", ">\n\nI don't personally moderate any subreddits and I am not familiar with the tools available to do so. Perhaps you could reach out to the moderators of other subreddits that do have post formatting requirements to determine what strategies they use to enforce them. \nr/HobbyDrama is fairly strict that your post must be pretty comprehensive, they may be able to offer advice. I'm sure others would have some ideas. \nI would also break views down into 3 categories: philosophical views, preferential views and views regarding objective facts. \nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts and follow some rules so you let shit fester on the front page, making it clear shit posts are acceptable.", ">\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people. It's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. Friction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. Forcing people to decide which of three categories their view falls into and then following a set of rules based on that category feels like bad friction.\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. Opening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.", ">\n\n\n\nPersonally I would go with a very strict formatting requirement including multiple specific sections such as one stating your core view actually is, one stating why you hold such a view and one including what information supports your view if you claim that your view is an objective fact. \n\nThat feels like a bridge too far, to be honest.\nCMV is, at its core, a service we offer to people.\n\nIt is reasonable to expect people to follow rules to engage in a useful service \n\nIt's one of the few places on the web where you can come and say, \"Hey, I believe X. Help me understand why the other side feels differently\" and be met with civil, informative replies.\n\nBut when we don't understand what someone believes or why we can't do that. \n\nThe more friction we put into that process - formatting requirements, source requirements, etc. - means that fewer people will come here and make use of the service. \n\nThis is actually a good thing since you have repeatedly stated you don't have adequate moderation resources. \n\nFriction has plusses and minuses, but given how few places like us exist I'm always hesitant to make it harder for people to be more open-minded. \n\nPeople that are open minded will read the rules and if there post is taken down will follow the instructions to repost it. \n\nCase in point, not everyone has evidence for what they believe yet they believe it all the same. Forcing them to go out and find evidence to back up their claim might lead them to just not posting at all, and that would be bad for them as they might never try to have that view challenged again. \n\nThen they frankly weren't that open to it in the first place. \n\nOpening yourself up to criticism and critique is hard enough without having to jump through a set of hoops in addition.\n\nI'd say 40% plus of posts never open up to critique, they are feels over realz garbage. They not only waste time they make other posts worse by making this a place where garbage is accepted. \n\n\nI feel this subreddits moderation team is needlessly fearful that someone won't post because there are expectations they look at a few posts \n\nI am fearful of that, but I wouldn't say needlessly. This sub has a mission, and I am always cautious of things that would make accomplishing that mission harder.\n\nSometimes you need to make sacrifices to actually accomplish that mission rather than be a platform for misinformation. I would actually argue this subreddit damages the world right now.", ">\n\n\"Fresh Friday\" should start around US east coast morning because the sub is just completely dead each friday until 3pm in central european time.\n(obviously it won't make the sub super active but at least there could be one or two CMV)", ">\n\nOh good, I'm not the only one thinking that. \nLike they said, we are lucky to get a post or two before noon time EST.", ">\n\nHas there been any thought of a sort of automod post on the most common repeated topics? Or a sticky post/wiki with \"common CMV subjects\" for people to read through?\nIt gets tiring for the regular visitors here to repeatedly see the same topics posted, when they've been discussed to death and this new post has nothing different about the last one.\nA sort of \"This appears to be a commonly discussed subject, please check out these other similar CMV's where the OP's view was changed.\" Something to hopefully encourage folks to look at the common arguments and either rethink their own position or realize how their view is different and provide a more interesting/different take on the subject?", ">\n\nThose are already posted when someone submits a thread on a common topic. \nWe don't remove the thread, as we see CMVs as personal to the OP, but we do let them know that other threads exist touching on the subject.", ">\n\nAlthough this has been brought up before, block abuse is still a problem. People, especially OP, using blocks in response to good faith participation (usually in response to an argument they can't respond to or pressing a question they can't answer) is not healthy for this subreddit.", ">\n\nWe know. There is nothing we can do about it. I've begged the Admins for better tools to address the problem but have gotten no response.", ">\n\nCan you do nothing even when there are multiple users reporting they have been blocked and when the blocker is explicit about having blocked people? I didn't think this problem was so bad until a current CMV post when multiple people said they had been blocked by the same user who then (according to the OP) also blocked the OP.", ">\n\nWe have a long standing policy that we don't act on things we can't personally verify as true. This isn't to say that we don't trust you specifically, but people do lie; I've had people submit photoshopped screencaps to try and get people banned (the idiot photoshopped me without realizing I was a mod, so that didn't work out great for them). If we can't see it with our own eyes, we don't take action.\nIf we start taking a user's word for something, it becomes far too easy to weaponize and exploit.", ">\n\nIf a user is saying they have blocked people in their own public comments, does this not qualify as something you can personally verify as true?", ">\n\nIf the user themselves says that they blocked another user, then yes, we will take that into account. We remove comments like that for Rule 3.", ">\n\nOkay: I will report the instance I am aware of for a rule 3 violation. Thanks.", ">\n\nI feel like there should be some sort of rule where an OP has to read some basic information about gender-related issues before posting about them, so often there are CMVs about gender topics that could have their view changed by a 20 second google. It would be nice if the OPs posting about gender had at least a basic awareness of what happens.\nFor example, today there was a post about teens transitioning and the OP had no idea puberty blockers even existed", ">\n\nNot everyone has a rational basis for what they believe. If you can educate them by providing evidence that they didn't know was out there, isn't that a good thing?", ">\n\nout of curiosity, what changes have been put into place because of this bimonthly feedback here if any?\nI'm also curious what could be done about threads that have hundreds of replies, and an OP who is clearly there and responding, and then the thread just goes away because \"You must demonstrate you are open to the view changing\".\nWhat criteria is ever used for demonstrating this? Perhaps when a thread is hundreds of replies deep, there must clearly be a reason for the removal, not just a 'vibe'... why not at least put that reason in there instead of just removing and saying \"Rule 2\"?", ">\n\n\nwhat changes have been put into place because of this bimonthly feedback here if any?\n\nThere have been a few. Off the top of my head, we've made adjustments to how we handle the influx of gender-related posts and the Rule B pre-removal message is a direct result of suggestions here.\nThe problem is that we don't get a ton of actionable feedback from folks. People either ask for things that fundamentally change what CMV is (which we won't do) or things that aren't realistically possible (due to Reddit limitations or lack of developers for custom bots).\nWe have these threads because we want to listen, but not every suggestion is something we'll accept.\n\nWhat criteria is ever used for demonstrating this?\n\nThe Rule B wiki has a very long list of the criteria we use to evaluate that rule.\n\nwhy not at least put that reason in there\n\nWe'd like to do that, but we simply don't have the manpower to go through and provide specific examples for every removal. Frankly, we already struggle to keep up with the workload here, so anything that increases that workload isn't something we can consider until we get a significant number of moderators.", ">\n\n\nOff the top of my head, we've made adjustments to how we handle the influx of gender-related posts\n\nCan you expand on this? What adjustments have been made?\nI used to really enjoy this subreddit, but have lately been feeling that the constant posts about gender (which inevitably are either pushing some hateful rhetoric or get filled up with it in the comments) have been taxing on my mental state and I've had to begin avoiding coming here all together.", ">\n\nWe limit posts on gender-related topics to a single active post per day. Trust me, there are a lot more that try to get through that we stop. We don't get them all (sometimes one gets through that we don't see) but I'd guess that we end up pulling 2/3 of the gender stuff that gets posted. We are also much more heavily policing off-topic gender rants in posts not about that topic (under Rule 5).\nI get that it is taxing, but one of our core values is that we, as the moderation team, don't decide what views are off-limits. We won't ban a topic entirely (save the few that are listed in Rule D) so there will always be gender-related posts here.", ">\n\nOut of curiosity, why is the most recent post perma locked? I noticed it’s locked with loads is disinformation still up within the post, and since it’s locked it’s upvotes have increased 25%, leaving it as the number one post for days. How does leaving this locked topic with loads of disinformation at the top of your sub help improve its function?", ">\n\nThere are hundreds of reports we are still trying to evaluate and clean up. The number of rule violations was overwhelming our team, so we had to pause it until we can get it back under control.", ">\n\nDo you think it’s working that you are upholding your ideas of a CMV sub and people come in here spreading more disinformation than you can handle? To the point where you have to leave it up, exposing untold numbers of visitors to said disinformation? It appears to me that this sub is very prone to the social media version of ‘the Gish gallop’.", ">\n\nOur stance is that it is not up to us as the moderation team to determine what is or is not the misinformation. That is up to the users in the individual threads.\nWe are forced to lock maybe one post a month because we are overwhelmed. It isn't a significant problem in our eyes.", ">\n\nWhy isn't it up to you? Someone says something which is verifiably wrong, proven by research, and you don't have the ability to declare that disinformation? There's a very clear difference between misinformation and disinformation, and I would suggest that your sub has a massive issue with the second moreso than the first. How does it improve your sub to have a mod team which is so hands off that you allow people to spread straight lies?", ">\n\nOur ethos is that moderators are not the arbiters of truth. We don't decide what views are right or wrong - this isn't our role. Our role is to keep things civil and on topic; its the role of our users to argue the information presented in threads.\nThis is a foundational principle of CMV and isn't going to change.", ">\n\nNot sure about solutions but it feels like every other post where someone hasn't understood the sub, they see all the posts roasting and dismantling their position and just delete their post rather than award deltas or offer counter arguments.\nIs it possible to block deletion? Or to have a community system of deltas for people who should have had them but didn't?", ">\n\n\nIs it possible to block deletion?\n\nSadly, no. Reddit doesn't allow us to disable deletions.\nWe do try and keep track of them in our notes and we use it as evidence if a user is reaching the threshold for a ban.\n\nOr to have a community system of deltas for people who should have had them but didn't?\n\nWe really don't want to do that. Deltas are about the OP's view and what made their view change, so any system were someone other than the OP decides that an argument should have been good enough for a view-change isn't something we want to implement as it would cheapen deltas.", ">\n\nWhat about a second metric for how many times you contributed to an OP rage quitting? \"Sigmas\"", ">\n\nI know it’s not possible, but I often joke to myself that I wish there was a way to track wagers on whether or not a post will be removed for a rule B violation.\nBecause there are some that are so obviously soap boxing that I don’t even bother trying to change their view, and just grab the popcorn and wait.", ">\n\nSometimes you can just sense the rule B violation approaching from the language in the post, or their first reply.\nI think that once a post has been removed for rule B mods should stop enforcing the rules so that everyone can roast them.", ">\n\nThe problem is that 1) in the mod queue there's no way to easily tell if a comment came from a removed post or not, checking that for every comment would add an enormous amount of time and 2) sometimes rule B posts do get reapproved. It's rare but it does happen. So then what would happen to all those rule breaking comments. They were okay while it was down, but not okay now? Any solution there seems real bad", ">\n\nPlus there isn't any benefit to it. While making fun of an OP may make you feel better, it doesn't help the core mission of the sub.", ">\n\nIn general I would be a fan of looser moderation so long as the number of posts per day is relatively small. I wish I had the time to go back and really look, but I think its like 15 to 20 posts per day which survive moderation (obviously I can't count the total number, I can count what was not removed),\ntwo reasons\n\n\n1 - with such a small number of posts I can decide for myself what I want to participate in.\n\n\n2 - I think people generally want higher quality posts so they support more moderation. But I don't see how removing mediocre quality or being really strict about rule B for example will increase the number of really good posts. It reduces the total number of posts, but that number is already so small.\n\n\n2.7 million subs and 20 posts per day? we should be getting a few hundred at least I would think. I've love to load /new and be able to pick between 20 thread from the last 30 minutes instead of 8 from the last 4 hours.\nIf we were getting 1000 posts a day and half where trash, then by all means stricter moderation would be great. I'm just talking about as things stand right now. I think we can be pretty lose especially with the rule B, and even a little with E and D. A and C I think remaining super strict makes sense. \nTl;dr i wish this sub had more content.", ">\n\nI'm not sure what is to be done about that without severely compromising quality.\nI looked through the logs of the last day and we had about 70 posts removed. Only about 10 of those were from human moderators (violations like Rules B and E). The other 90% were for two primary reasons:\n\n\nThey were too short to satisfy Rule A. A post that short isn't going to be high quality\n\n\nThey were from low/negative karma accounts. We put that rule in place so that brand new users (and trolls) don't post here until they understand what we are about.\n\n\nI'd be happy to see a higher volume of posts from people, but the reason that most posts get removed are pretty valid." ]
Actually reads like an Onion article wtf	[]
> It gets worse when you look at the LA times article linked in this one … “Yatoya Toy, Lowe’s older sister, identified the man running from police as her brother. She said that his legs had been amputated after an altercation with law enforcement in Texas, and that the family also has questions about that incident.”	[ "Actually reads like an Onion article wtf" ]
> He lost his legs from cops in Texas only to later be murdered by cops in California?	[ "Actually reads like an Onion article wtf", ">\n\nIt gets worse when you look at the LA times article linked in this one … \n\n“Yatoya Toy, Lowe’s older sister, identified the man running from police as her brother. She said that his legs had been amputated after an altercation with law enforcement in Texas, and that the family also has questions about that incident.”" ]
> No wonder he was scared(well, more than the normal amount of scared one would be when dealing with police).	[ "Actually reads like an Onion article wtf", ">\n\nIt gets worse when you look at the LA times article linked in this one … \n\n“Yatoya Toy, Lowe’s older sister, identified the man running from police as her brother. She said that his legs had been amputated after an altercation with law enforcement in Texas, and that the family also has questions about that incident.”", ">\n\nHe lost his legs from cops in Texas only to later be murdered by cops in California?" ]
> It kinda seems like police departments spend a little too much time drilling into recruits' heads the circumstances when they're "allowed" to shoot someone, and not enough focus on when they "must" shoot someone. "Knife = fire at will" seems to be the only calculation that was done here. Like that dude in the Home Depot lot a year or two ago.	[ "Actually reads like an Onion article wtf", ">\n\nIt gets worse when you look at the LA times article linked in this one … \n\n“Yatoya Toy, Lowe’s older sister, identified the man running from police as her brother. She said that his legs had been amputated after an altercation with law enforcement in Texas, and that the family also has questions about that incident.”", ">\n\nHe lost his legs from cops in Texas only to later be murdered by cops in California?", ">\n\nNo wonder he was scared(well, more than the normal amount of scared one would be when dealing with police)." ]
> There's never any repercussions so why would they.	[ "Actually reads like an Onion article wtf", ">\n\nIt gets worse when you look at the LA times article linked in this one … \n\n“Yatoya Toy, Lowe’s older sister, identified the man running from police as her brother. She said that his legs had been amputated after an altercation with law enforcement in Texas, and that the family also has questions about that incident.”", ">\n\nHe lost his legs from cops in Texas only to later be murdered by cops in California?", ">\n\nNo wonder he was scared(well, more than the normal amount of scared one would be when dealing with police).", ">\n\nIt kinda seems like police departments spend a little too much time drilling into recruits' heads the circumstances when they're \"allowed\" to shoot someone, and not enough focus on when they \"must\" shoot someone. \"Knife = fire at will\" seems to be the only calculation that was done here. Like that dude in the Home Depot lot a year or two ago." ]
> Well for a normal person it'd be the natural desire to not shoot another human. But it really does feel like some of these people are just waiting for the opportunity.	[ "Actually reads like an Onion article wtf", ">\n\nIt gets worse when you look at the LA times article linked in this one … \n\n“Yatoya Toy, Lowe’s older sister, identified the man running from police as her brother. She said that his legs had been amputated after an altercation with law enforcement in Texas, and that the family also has questions about that incident.”", ">\n\nHe lost his legs from cops in Texas only to later be murdered by cops in California?", ">\n\nNo wonder he was scared(well, more than the normal amount of scared one would be when dealing with police).", ">\n\nIt kinda seems like police departments spend a little too much time drilling into recruits' heads the circumstances when they're \"allowed\" to shoot someone, and not enough focus on when they \"must\" shoot someone. \"Knife = fire at will\" seems to be the only calculation that was done here. Like that dude in the Home Depot lot a year or two ago.", ">\n\nThere's never any repercussions so why would they." ]
> There absolutely guys who become police just for the chance to "legally" shot/kill someone. I knew some guys who signed up for the military just for that reason too. But those guys either ended up being total looser or cops after serving.	[ "Actually reads like an Onion article wtf", ">\n\nIt gets worse when you look at the LA times article linked in this one … \n\n“Yatoya Toy, Lowe’s older sister, identified the man running from police as her brother. She said that his legs had been amputated after an altercation with law enforcement in Texas, and that the family also has questions about that incident.”", ">\n\nHe lost his legs from cops in Texas only to later be murdered by cops in California?", ">\n\nNo wonder he was scared(well, more than the normal amount of scared one would be when dealing with police).", ">\n\nIt kinda seems like police departments spend a little too much time drilling into recruits' heads the circumstances when they're \"allowed\" to shoot someone, and not enough focus on when they \"must\" shoot someone. \"Knife = fire at will\" seems to be the only calculation that was done here. Like that dude in the Home Depot lot a year or two ago.", ">\n\nThere's never any repercussions so why would they.", ">\n\nWell for a normal person it'd be the natural desire to not shoot another human. But it really does feel like some of these people are just waiting for the opportunity." ]
> Total losers OR cops? Idk these things seem one in the same to me	[ "Actually reads like an Onion article wtf", ">\n\nIt gets worse when you look at the LA times article linked in this one … \n\n“Yatoya Toy, Lowe’s older sister, identified the man running from police as her brother. She said that his legs had been amputated after an altercation with law enforcement in Texas, and that the family also has questions about that incident.”", ">\n\nHe lost his legs from cops in Texas only to later be murdered by cops in California?", ">\n\nNo wonder he was scared(well, more than the normal amount of scared one would be when dealing with police).", ">\n\nIt kinda seems like police departments spend a little too much time drilling into recruits' heads the circumstances when they're \"allowed\" to shoot someone, and not enough focus on when they \"must\" shoot someone. \"Knife = fire at will\" seems to be the only calculation that was done here. Like that dude in the Home Depot lot a year or two ago.", ">\n\nThere's never any repercussions so why would they.", ">\n\nWell for a normal person it'd be the natural desire to not shoot another human. But it really does feel like some of these people are just waiting for the opportunity.", ">\n\nThere absolutely guys who become police just for the chance to \"legally\" shot/kill someone. I knew some guys who signed up for the military just for that reason too. But those guys either ended up being total looser or cops after serving." ]
> Underrated comment	[ "Actually reads like an Onion article wtf", ">\n\nIt gets worse when you look at the LA times article linked in this one … \n\n“Yatoya Toy, Lowe’s older sister, identified the man running from police as her brother. She said that his legs had been amputated after an altercation with law enforcement in Texas, and that the family also has questions about that incident.”", ">\n\nHe lost his legs from cops in Texas only to later be murdered by cops in California?", ">\n\nNo wonder he was scared(well, more than the normal amount of scared one would be when dealing with police).", ">\n\nIt kinda seems like police departments spend a little too much time drilling into recruits' heads the circumstances when they're \"allowed\" to shoot someone, and not enough focus on when they \"must\" shoot someone. \"Knife = fire at will\" seems to be the only calculation that was done here. Like that dude in the Home Depot lot a year or two ago.", ">\n\nThere's never any repercussions so why would they.", ">\n\nWell for a normal person it'd be the natural desire to not shoot another human. But it really does feel like some of these people are just waiting for the opportunity.", ">\n\nThere absolutely guys who become police just for the chance to \"legally\" shot/kill someone. I knew some guys who signed up for the military just for that reason too. But those guys either ended up being total looser or cops after serving.", ">\n\nTotal losers OR cops? Idk these things seem one in the same to me" ]
> The Huntington Park department does not use body cameras. Case closed - the cops were justified in shooting him because the cops say they were justified in shooting him.	[ "Actually reads like an Onion article wtf", ">\n\nIt gets worse when you look at the LA times article linked in this one … \n\n“Yatoya Toy, Lowe’s older sister, identified the man running from police as her brother. She said that his legs had been amputated after an altercation with law enforcement in Texas, and that the family also has questions about that incident.”", ">\n\nHe lost his legs from cops in Texas only to later be murdered by cops in California?", ">\n\nNo wonder he was scared(well, more than the normal amount of scared one would be when dealing with police).", ">\n\nIt kinda seems like police departments spend a little too much time drilling into recruits' heads the circumstances when they're \"allowed\" to shoot someone, and not enough focus on when they \"must\" shoot someone. \"Knife = fire at will\" seems to be the only calculation that was done here. Like that dude in the Home Depot lot a year or two ago.", ">\n\nThere's never any repercussions so why would they.", ">\n\nWell for a normal person it'd be the natural desire to not shoot another human. But it really does feel like some of these people are just waiting for the opportunity.", ">\n\nThere absolutely guys who become police just for the chance to \"legally\" shot/kill someone. I knew some guys who signed up for the military just for that reason too. But those guys either ended up being total looser or cops after serving.", ">\n\nTotal losers OR cops? Idk these things seem one in the same to me", ">\n\nUnderrated comment" ]
> A bystander caught it on video for the NY Post. How many helpless people are the California cops going to murder before the state and city governments reign in their rapid dogs? This is far from the first time this has happened. It's not rocket science: require body cams that the rabid dogs cannot circumvent, and take control of investigations of officer shootings away from the police departments. These guys know that it won't be their BFFs investigating their murders anymore, maybe they'll think before shooting.	[ "Actually reads like an Onion article wtf", ">\n\nIt gets worse when you look at the LA times article linked in this one … \n\n“Yatoya Toy, Lowe’s older sister, identified the man running from police as her brother. She said that his legs had been amputated after an altercation with law enforcement in Texas, and that the family also has questions about that incident.”", ">\n\nHe lost his legs from cops in Texas only to later be murdered by cops in California?", ">\n\nNo wonder he was scared(well, more than the normal amount of scared one would be when dealing with police).", ">\n\nIt kinda seems like police departments spend a little too much time drilling into recruits' heads the circumstances when they're \"allowed\" to shoot someone, and not enough focus on when they \"must\" shoot someone. \"Knife = fire at will\" seems to be the only calculation that was done here. Like that dude in the Home Depot lot a year or two ago.", ">\n\nThere's never any repercussions so why would they.", ">\n\nWell for a normal person it'd be the natural desire to not shoot another human. But it really does feel like some of these people are just waiting for the opportunity.", ">\n\nThere absolutely guys who become police just for the chance to \"legally\" shot/kill someone. I knew some guys who signed up for the military just for that reason too. But those guys either ended up being total looser or cops after serving.", ">\n\nTotal losers OR cops? Idk these things seem one in the same to me", ">\n\nUnderrated comment", ">\n\n\nThe Huntington Park department does not use body cameras.\n\nCase closed - the cops were justified in shooting him because the cops say they were justified in shooting him." ]
> We got more cameras on people making McDoubles.	[ "Actually reads like an Onion article wtf", ">\n\nIt gets worse when you look at the LA times article linked in this one … \n\n“Yatoya Toy, Lowe’s older sister, identified the man running from police as her brother. She said that his legs had been amputated after an altercation with law enforcement in Texas, and that the family also has questions about that incident.”", ">\n\nHe lost his legs from cops in Texas only to later be murdered by cops in California?", ">\n\nNo wonder he was scared(well, more than the normal amount of scared one would be when dealing with police).", ">\n\nIt kinda seems like police departments spend a little too much time drilling into recruits' heads the circumstances when they're \"allowed\" to shoot someone, and not enough focus on when they \"must\" shoot someone. \"Knife = fire at will\" seems to be the only calculation that was done here. Like that dude in the Home Depot lot a year or two ago.", ">\n\nThere's never any repercussions so why would they.", ">\n\nWell for a normal person it'd be the natural desire to not shoot another human. But it really does feel like some of these people are just waiting for the opportunity.", ">\n\nThere absolutely guys who become police just for the chance to \"legally\" shot/kill someone. I knew some guys who signed up for the military just for that reason too. But those guys either ended up being total looser or cops after serving.", ">\n\nTotal losers OR cops? Idk these things seem one in the same to me", ">\n\nUnderrated comment", ">\n\n\nThe Huntington Park department does not use body cameras.\n\nCase closed - the cops were justified in shooting him because the cops say they were justified in shooting him.", ">\n\nA bystander caught it on video for the NY Post.\nHow many helpless people are the California cops going to murder before the state and city governments reign in their rapid dogs? This is far from the first time this has happened. It's not rocket science: require body cams that the rabid dogs cannot circumvent, and take control of investigations of officer shootings away from the police departments. These guys know that it won't be their BFFs investigating their murders anymore, maybe they'll think before shooting." ]
> And they get fired for less	[ "Actually reads like an Onion article wtf", ">\n\nIt gets worse when you look at the LA times article linked in this one … \n\n“Yatoya Toy, Lowe’s older sister, identified the man running from police as her brother. She said that his legs had been amputated after an altercation with law enforcement in Texas, and that the family also has questions about that incident.”", ">\n\nHe lost his legs from cops in Texas only to later be murdered by cops in California?", ">\n\nNo wonder he was scared(well, more than the normal amount of scared one would be when dealing with police).", ">\n\nIt kinda seems like police departments spend a little too much time drilling into recruits' heads the circumstances when they're \"allowed\" to shoot someone, and not enough focus on when they \"must\" shoot someone. \"Knife = fire at will\" seems to be the only calculation that was done here. Like that dude in the Home Depot lot a year or two ago.", ">\n\nThere's never any repercussions so why would they.", ">\n\nWell for a normal person it'd be the natural desire to not shoot another human. But it really does feel like some of these people are just waiting for the opportunity.", ">\n\nThere absolutely guys who become police just for the chance to \"legally\" shot/kill someone. I knew some guys who signed up for the military just for that reason too. But those guys either ended up being total looser or cops after serving.", ">\n\nTotal losers OR cops? Idk these things seem one in the same to me", ">\n\nUnderrated comment", ">\n\n\nThe Huntington Park department does not use body cameras.\n\nCase closed - the cops were justified in shooting him because the cops say they were justified in shooting him.", ">\n\nA bystander caught it on video for the NY Post.\nHow many helpless people are the California cops going to murder before the state and city governments reign in their rapid dogs? This is far from the first time this has happened. It's not rocket science: require body cams that the rabid dogs cannot circumvent, and take control of investigations of officer shootings away from the police departments. These guys know that it won't be their BFFs investigating their murders anymore, maybe they'll think before shooting.", ">\n\nWe got more cameras on people making McDoubles." ]
> Between cops and Mcdonalds workers, it's the mcdonalds workers who need the union and the cops who really don't need one	[ "Actually reads like an Onion article wtf", ">\n\nIt gets worse when you look at the LA times article linked in this one … \n\n“Yatoya Toy, Lowe’s older sister, identified the man running from police as her brother. She said that his legs had been amputated after an altercation with law enforcement in Texas, and that the family also has questions about that incident.”", ">\n\nHe lost his legs from cops in Texas only to later be murdered by cops in California?", ">\n\nNo wonder he was scared(well, more than the normal amount of scared one would be when dealing with police).", ">\n\nIt kinda seems like police departments spend a little too much time drilling into recruits' heads the circumstances when they're \"allowed\" to shoot someone, and not enough focus on when they \"must\" shoot someone. \"Knife = fire at will\" seems to be the only calculation that was done here. Like that dude in the Home Depot lot a year or two ago.", ">\n\nThere's never any repercussions so why would they.", ">\n\nWell for a normal person it'd be the natural desire to not shoot another human. But it really does feel like some of these people are just waiting for the opportunity.", ">\n\nThere absolutely guys who become police just for the chance to \"legally\" shot/kill someone. I knew some guys who signed up for the military just for that reason too. But those guys either ended up being total looser or cops after serving.", ">\n\nTotal losers OR cops? Idk these things seem one in the same to me", ">\n\nUnderrated comment", ">\n\n\nThe Huntington Park department does not use body cameras.\n\nCase closed - the cops were justified in shooting him because the cops say they were justified in shooting him.", ">\n\nA bystander caught it on video for the NY Post.\nHow many helpless people are the California cops going to murder before the state and city governments reign in their rapid dogs? This is far from the first time this has happened. It's not rocket science: require body cams that the rabid dogs cannot circumvent, and take control of investigations of officer shootings away from the police departments. These guys know that it won't be their BFFs investigating their murders anymore, maybe they'll think before shooting.", ">\n\nWe got more cameras on people making McDoubles.", ">\n\nAnd they get fired for less" ]
> Police could use some training from McDonalds workers on how to de-escalate situations.	[ "Actually reads like an Onion article wtf", ">\n\nIt gets worse when you look at the LA times article linked in this one … \n\n“Yatoya Toy, Lowe’s older sister, identified the man running from police as her brother. She said that his legs had been amputated after an altercation with law enforcement in Texas, and that the family also has questions about that incident.”", ">\n\nHe lost his legs from cops in Texas only to later be murdered by cops in California?", ">\n\nNo wonder he was scared(well, more than the normal amount of scared one would be when dealing with police).", ">\n\nIt kinda seems like police departments spend a little too much time drilling into recruits' heads the circumstances when they're \"allowed\" to shoot someone, and not enough focus on when they \"must\" shoot someone. \"Knife = fire at will\" seems to be the only calculation that was done here. Like that dude in the Home Depot lot a year or two ago.", ">\n\nThere's never any repercussions so why would they.", ">\n\nWell for a normal person it'd be the natural desire to not shoot another human. But it really does feel like some of these people are just waiting for the opportunity.", ">\n\nThere absolutely guys who become police just for the chance to \"legally\" shot/kill someone. I knew some guys who signed up for the military just for that reason too. But those guys either ended up being total looser or cops after serving.", ">\n\nTotal losers OR cops? Idk these things seem one in the same to me", ">\n\nUnderrated comment", ">\n\n\nThe Huntington Park department does not use body cameras.\n\nCase closed - the cops were justified in shooting him because the cops say they were justified in shooting him.", ">\n\nA bystander caught it on video for the NY Post.\nHow many helpless people are the California cops going to murder before the state and city governments reign in their rapid dogs? This is far from the first time this has happened. It's not rocket science: require body cams that the rabid dogs cannot circumvent, and take control of investigations of officer shootings away from the police departments. These guys know that it won't be their BFFs investigating their murders anymore, maybe they'll think before shooting.", ">\n\nWe got more cameras on people making McDoubles.", ">\n\nAnd they get fired for less", ">\n\nBetween cops and Mcdonalds workers, it's the mcdonalds workers who need the union and the cops who really don't need one" ]
> The academy clearly borrows from the Waffle House manual of conflict resolution.	[ "Actually reads like an Onion article wtf", ">\n\nIt gets worse when you look at the LA times article linked in this one … \n\n“Yatoya Toy, Lowe’s older sister, identified the man running from police as her brother. She said that his legs had been amputated after an altercation with law enforcement in Texas, and that the family also has questions about that incident.”", ">\n\nHe lost his legs from cops in Texas only to later be murdered by cops in California?", ">\n\nNo wonder he was scared(well, more than the normal amount of scared one would be when dealing with police).", ">\n\nIt kinda seems like police departments spend a little too much time drilling into recruits' heads the circumstances when they're \"allowed\" to shoot someone, and not enough focus on when they \"must\" shoot someone. \"Knife = fire at will\" seems to be the only calculation that was done here. Like that dude in the Home Depot lot a year or two ago.", ">\n\nThere's never any repercussions so why would they.", ">\n\nWell for a normal person it'd be the natural desire to not shoot another human. But it really does feel like some of these people are just waiting for the opportunity.", ">\n\nThere absolutely guys who become police just for the chance to \"legally\" shot/kill someone. I knew some guys who signed up for the military just for that reason too. But those guys either ended up being total looser or cops after serving.", ">\n\nTotal losers OR cops? Idk these things seem one in the same to me", ">\n\nUnderrated comment", ">\n\n\nThe Huntington Park department does not use body cameras.\n\nCase closed - the cops were justified in shooting him because the cops say they were justified in shooting him.", ">\n\nA bystander caught it on video for the NY Post.\nHow many helpless people are the California cops going to murder before the state and city governments reign in their rapid dogs? This is far from the first time this has happened. It's not rocket science: require body cams that the rabid dogs cannot circumvent, and take control of investigations of officer shootings away from the police departments. These guys know that it won't be their BFFs investigating their murders anymore, maybe they'll think before shooting.", ">\n\nWe got more cameras on people making McDoubles.", ">\n\nAnd they get fired for less", ">\n\nBetween cops and Mcdonalds workers, it's the mcdonalds workers who need the union and the cops who really don't need one", ">\n\nPolice could use some training from McDonalds workers on how to de-escalate situations." ]
> Waffle House warfare	[ "Actually reads like an Onion article wtf", ">\n\nIt gets worse when you look at the LA times article linked in this one … \n\n“Yatoya Toy, Lowe’s older sister, identified the man running from police as her brother. She said that his legs had been amputated after an altercation with law enforcement in Texas, and that the family also has questions about that incident.”", ">\n\nHe lost his legs from cops in Texas only to later be murdered by cops in California?", ">\n\nNo wonder he was scared(well, more than the normal amount of scared one would be when dealing with police).", ">\n\nIt kinda seems like police departments spend a little too much time drilling into recruits' heads the circumstances when they're \"allowed\" to shoot someone, and not enough focus on when they \"must\" shoot someone. \"Knife = fire at will\" seems to be the only calculation that was done here. Like that dude in the Home Depot lot a year or two ago.", ">\n\nThere's never any repercussions so why would they.", ">\n\nWell for a normal person it'd be the natural desire to not shoot another human. But it really does feel like some of these people are just waiting for the opportunity.", ">\n\nThere absolutely guys who become police just for the chance to \"legally\" shot/kill someone. I knew some guys who signed up for the military just for that reason too. But those guys either ended up being total looser or cops after serving.", ">\n\nTotal losers OR cops? Idk these things seem one in the same to me", ">\n\nUnderrated comment", ">\n\n\nThe Huntington Park department does not use body cameras.\n\nCase closed - the cops were justified in shooting him because the cops say they were justified in shooting him.", ">\n\nA bystander caught it on video for the NY Post.\nHow many helpless people are the California cops going to murder before the state and city governments reign in their rapid dogs? This is far from the first time this has happened. It's not rocket science: require body cams that the rabid dogs cannot circumvent, and take control of investigations of officer shootings away from the police departments. These guys know that it won't be their BFFs investigating their murders anymore, maybe they'll think before shooting.", ">\n\nWe got more cameras on people making McDoubles.", ">\n\nAnd they get fired for less", ">\n\nBetween cops and Mcdonalds workers, it's the mcdonalds workers who need the union and the cops who really don't need one", ">\n\nPolice could use some training from McDonalds workers on how to de-escalate situations.", ">\n\nThe academy clearly borrows from the Waffle House manual of conflict resolution." ]
> Oh I was wondering what the new Call of Duty was gonna be called	[ "Actually reads like an Onion article wtf", ">\n\nIt gets worse when you look at the LA times article linked in this one … \n\n“Yatoya Toy, Lowe’s older sister, identified the man running from police as her brother. She said that his legs had been amputated after an altercation with law enforcement in Texas, and that the family also has questions about that incident.”", ">\n\nHe lost his legs from cops in Texas only to later be murdered by cops in California?", ">\n\nNo wonder he was scared(well, more than the normal amount of scared one would be when dealing with police).", ">\n\nIt kinda seems like police departments spend a little too much time drilling into recruits' heads the circumstances when they're \"allowed\" to shoot someone, and not enough focus on when they \"must\" shoot someone. \"Knife = fire at will\" seems to be the only calculation that was done here. Like that dude in the Home Depot lot a year or two ago.", ">\n\nThere's never any repercussions so why would they.", ">\n\nWell for a normal person it'd be the natural desire to not shoot another human. But it really does feel like some of these people are just waiting for the opportunity.", ">\n\nThere absolutely guys who become police just for the chance to \"legally\" shot/kill someone. I knew some guys who signed up for the military just for that reason too. But those guys either ended up being total looser or cops after serving.", ">\n\nTotal losers OR cops? Idk these things seem one in the same to me", ">\n\nUnderrated comment", ">\n\n\nThe Huntington Park department does not use body cameras.\n\nCase closed - the cops were justified in shooting him because the cops say they were justified in shooting him.", ">\n\nA bystander caught it on video for the NY Post.\nHow many helpless people are the California cops going to murder before the state and city governments reign in their rapid dogs? This is far from the first time this has happened. It's not rocket science: require body cams that the rabid dogs cannot circumvent, and take control of investigations of officer shootings away from the police departments. These guys know that it won't be their BFFs investigating their murders anymore, maybe they'll think before shooting.", ">\n\nWe got more cameras on people making McDoubles.", ">\n\nAnd they get fired for less", ">\n\nBetween cops and Mcdonalds workers, it's the mcdonalds workers who need the union and the cops who really don't need one", ">\n\nPolice could use some training from McDonalds workers on how to de-escalate situations.", ">\n\nThe academy clearly borrows from the Waffle House manual of conflict resolution.", ">\n\nWaffle House warfare" ]

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.