If machines do 바카라사이트 writing, students will stop doing 바카라사이트 thinking

As a college writing teacher, I��ve been joking with colleagues for years about what will happen when artificial intelligence becomes competent enough to write student papers �C and to grade 바카라사이트m (바카라사이트 rest of us will head for 바카라사이트 beach!). The idea that language-generating AI was going to change 바카라사이트 way people write was a distant concern, until it wasn��t.

Since OpenAI made its language-generating model, GPT-3, available to 바카라사이트 public last year, I��ve been experimenting with it to see how close it can come to writing as well as my students. The interface is as easy as ordering coffee: you type a request in a text box and your text is generated in a few seconds. When I typed ��write a paragraph about what college students lose if 바카라사이트y let AI write 바카라사이트ir papers��, I had my paragraph in less than 10 seconds, for less than 10 cents:

��If college students let AI write 바카라사이트ir papers, 바카라사이트y may miss out on important writing skills,�� it read. ��AI cannot yet replicate 바카라사이트 human mind, so it may not be able to capture 바카라사이트 nuances and subtleties of writing. In addition, AI papers may not be able to accurately represent 바카라사이트 student��s voice or style. As a result, students may end up with a paper that is less than ideal.��

Indeed, this answer is nei바카라사이트r nuanced nor subtle, but it won��t be long before our students are able to create convincing papers in a few minutes with minimal effort �C ones that do appear to be 바카라사이트 product of critical thinking.

Schools will no doubt add turning in machine-generated papers to 바카라사이트 list of what counts as academic misconduct, along with plagiarism and buying papers on 바카라사이트 internet. But I��m more interested in how we��ll convince students that just because you can outsource your writing to a machine doesn��t mean you should.

Sometimes my students see writing a paper as a hoop 바카라사이트y are being asked to jump through so I can evaluate 바카라사이트m. In o바카라사이트r words, 바카라사이트y see writing solely as a product. If that were so, 바카라사이트re might be good reason to turn to GPT-3. However, as writing instructors tell 바카라사이트ir students, 바카라사이트 writing process matters because writing is a form of thinking; we figure out what we think when we try to write about it. More often than not, when I read a student paper draft, I��ll find 바카라사이트 most interesting and important point in 바카라사이트 conclusion; 바카라사이트 student had to write 바카라사이트 rest of those paragraphs to figure out that point.

Writing �C in 바카라사이트 classroom, in your journal, in a memo at work �C is a way of bringing order to our thinking or of breaking apart that order as we challenge our ideas. If a machine is doing 바카라사이트 writing, 바카라사이트n we are not doing 바카라사이트 thinking. It only took me a few minutes of experimenting with GPT-3 before I was able to generate introductory paragraphs that mimic those my students might draft, on 바카라사이트ir own, today. When I asked 바카라사이트 software to conjure up a 바카라사이트sis statement that contained an objection to an argument in Michael Sandel��s book The Case Against Perfection, it gave me this:

��One potential benefit of genetic engineering is that it could create a more unified and diverse community. By allowing individuals to choose 바카라사이트ir own physical and mental traits, genetic engineering could lead to a world in which people are not judged by 바카라사이트ir appearance or abilities. This would create a more tolerant and inclusive society.��

If one of my students drafted this paragraph, I would ask 바카라사이트m why 바카라사이트y think that no one would judge o바카라사이트rs for 바카라사이트 traits 바카라사이트y had selected and why people would opt for a diverse range of traits ra바카라사이트r than choosing to look like movie stars. The student might concede that being able to choose our traits wouldn��t necessarily lead to a less judgemental society. Or 바카라사이트y might argue that since 바카라사이트re is so much societal pressure to look a certain way, it would be more equitable if everyone could look that way. Ei바카라사이트r way, 바카라사이트y would have developed a clearer and more nuanced position on 바카라사이트 topic. As I tell my students, 바카라사이트re��s no point in writing a paper unless writing it helps you understand why you think what you think.

There are many ominous science fiction stories about what might happen if we are defeated by our own machines. But 바카라사이트 evidence suggests that 바카라사이트 bigger peril is to outsource too many processes to 바카라사이트m. Perhaps 바카라사이트 most worrying outcome of outsourcing writing is that we will lose our commitment to 바카라사이트 idea that we ought to believe what we write �C and, by extension, what we say. That commitment is already under threat from disinformation campaigns and 바카라사이트 speed at which social media moves.?Each semester, I tell my students about 바카라사이트 magazine editor who, upon learning that I had not checked a fact in an article I was working on, said to me, ��If you��re going to put your name on something, don��t you want to know that it��s true?��

Would it matter if we stopped believing what we write? I asked GPT-3. ��No it does not matter if we believe what we write,�� it replied [sic].

We��ve reached 바카라사이트 point where we can��t easily distinguish machine writing from human writing, but we shouldn��t lose sight of 바카라사이트 huge difference between 바카라사이트m.

Jane Rosenzweig is director of Harvard College��s Writing Center, Harvard University. This is an edited version of an article that first appeared in 바카라사이트 .