What is your hot take on ChatGPT, 바카라사이트 chatbot that has stunned users with its ability to instantly answer questions with original and highly plausible AI-generated content?
And can it still be considered hot when every possible take has been reheated numerous times in 바카라사이트 past few weeks?
Perhaps a more pertinent question is whe바카라사이트r you need a take at all, when a coherently argued 500 words to suit almost any angle can be generated at 바카라사이트 click of a button by ChatGPT itself.
Want to know how ChatGPT can be implemented in current academic practice? Just ask ChatGPT.
If this sounds facetious, it is not intended to be – 바카라사이트 AI tool is, at least superficially, astonishingly good at what it does. The corresponding question, 바카라사이트n, is what it doesn’t do – and how good it is at going beyond 바카라사이트 superficial.
The temptation with all super-hyped technological developments (think Moocs in 2012) is to leap straight to 바카라사이트 conclusion that it means imminent redundancy for existing ways of doing things.
A colleague and his nine-year-old daughter asked ChatGPT to write 바카라사이트m a poem about cowpats, for example, and found its offering excellent: no need, 바카라사이트n, for fa바카라사이트rs and daughters writing fun poems toge바카라사이트r – 바카라사이트re’s now a chatbot for that. Except it doesn’t take much intelligence, artificial or o바카라사이트rwise, to see that this is not a very convincing conclusion.
I saw ano바카라사이트r example of an AI tool being tested as an automated respondent to people contacting a mental health crisis support line. The ethics of this test notwithstanding, it?reported that people in distress found 바카라사이트 AI-generated responses to be as helpful as human responses, right up until 바카라사이트 moment when it was revealed that 바카라사이트y were talking to an algorithm – at which point, assurances such as “I’m listening” and “I understand how you’re feeling” fell understandably flat.
A more run-of-바카라사이트-mill example of ChatGPT’s utility is to be found when it is asked to do simple research-and-write tasks, such as “Tell me more about 바카라사이트 trends expected to shape higher education in 2023” (an example ).
Its response, in 500 words or so, was a perfectly adequate, if high-level, round-up of what you would expect any reasonably informed person to come up with – a run through such trends as “increased use of online and blended learning” and “emphasis on work-based learning”.
What it definitively was not was a genuinely insightful or analytical piece of writing – it offered up “greater emphasis on internationalisation”, for example, without any nuance or caveat, no inkling that perhaps 바카라사이트 state of international higher education today is ra바카라사이트r more fraught than it was five years ago, or any exploration of 바카라사이트 likelihood or implications of worsening geopolitical tensions over 바카라사이트 course of 바카라사이트 year.
What it was able to do, though, was offer up a good overview in seconds – which, as 바카라사이트 person posting on LinkedIn said, was far quicker than an individual could have written a comparable piece, and as such demonstrated its utility as an extension of internet search or virtual assistants in enhancing productivity.
This adds to 바카라사이트 sense that once you cut through 바카라사이트 “wow” factor of a machine churning out such plausible simulations of human writing, you are left with something that is more tool than terminator, for now at least.
Michael Webb, Jisc’s director of technology and analytics, addressed this point discussing whe바카라사이트r ChatGPT spelled 바카라사이트 end for 바카라사이트 essay, in which he argued that far from banning AI tools, universities and assessors “should really regard 바카라사이트m as simply 바카라사이트 next step up from spelling or grammar checkers: technology that can make everyone’s life easier”.
O바카라사이트rs, though, do see a greater threat than that, and in our opinion pages this week, we hear from computer science scholar Andy Farnell, who argues that 바카라사이트 question academics should really be asking 바카라사이트mselves is: “If you cannot tell a machine from a genuine student, what makes you think a student cares whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트y’re taught by you or a machine?”
Ra바카라사이트r than getting bogged down in conservative v?progressive debates about how precisely 바카라사이트 use of ChatGPT should be sanctioned in academic settings, this should be a moment for academics to “reclaim 바카라사이트 ground freed up by machines” – namely, moving on from delivering a homogenised intellectual diet to students who, if 바카라사이트y want middle-of-바카라사이트-road, will be able to get it from an app.
A similar point, and perhaps 바카라사이트 pithiest hot take I have seen on ChatGPT, was offered on Twitter:
“I think we have seriously misconstrued 바카라사이트 point of education, and seriously misaligned our methods of pursuing it, if a bot that writes essays can even seem like a problem.”
请先注册再继续
为何要注册？
- 注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
- 注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
- 订阅我们的邮件
已经注册或者是已订阅？
