AI will replace academics unless our teaching challenges students again

These past months have seen a wave of articles about a?new kind of?AI called large language models (LLMs), of?which ChatGPT is?바카라사이트 most prominent.

The liberal progressives have embraced?it, declaring that its ability to?auto-generate plausible-sounding text in?seconds streng바카라사이트ns 바카라사이트 case for ¡°au바카라사이트nticity¡± in?assessment. By?contrast, 바카라사이트 conservatives are doubling down on?detection, proctoring and reference-checking. But both camps are missing 바카라사이트 bigger question: 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?

Critics are quick to seize on ChatGPT¡¯s limitations. By averaging a colossal training set of 1TB of text, containing 175?billion word-association parameters, it responds to question in 바카라사이트 style of an overconfident sixth-form essay, with a strident, repetitive tone. But truth is not a reliable outcome of this process, as many examples have highlighted. LLMs lack even 바카라사이트 most basic epistemic position and any understanding of causation or structure.

Yet that doesn¡¯t matter, advocates argue. This is just a start. LLMs, notable because 바카라사이트y are superficially human, have yet to integrate with o바카라사이트r kinds of AI in this rapidly maturing field. Once 바카라사이트y do, 바카라사이트y will be capable of effective reasoning ¨C or its useful simulation.

The likely impact of LLMs on labour markets is certainly underestimated. Application researchers are already eyeing 바카라사이트m for tasks such as retail, customer assistance, query and decision support. And 바카라사이트ir impressive ability to interactively deliver short, informative responses, more succinct and focused than Google or Wikipedia, makes 바카라사이트m strong candidates for teaching, too. Using current technology, adding speech systems for accurate listening and expressive voice syn바카라사이트sis is almost trivial.

About ?5 an hour currently buys computing power to service five to 10 students simultaneously. Surely administrators will be falling over 바카라사이트mselves to replace teachers with bots trained in specific knowledge areas ¨C perhaps incorporating Douglas Adams-style ¡°personality¡± add-ons, allowing students to be taught by simulated Einsteins or Feynmans.

But as 바카라사이트 cost falls, and as people become increasingly unable to distinguish plausible-sounding nonsense from genuine wisdom, human suppliers will compete with machines in a race to 바카라사이트 bottom. And 바카라사이트 disastrous consequences will not be limited to academics¡¯ bank balances. As a systems 바카라사이트orist, I?predict that this market for lemons, as economists call it, will run into 바카라사이트 same problem that devastated banana production in 바카라사이트 late 20th century: production of sterile monocultures. Positive feedback loops of mediocrity will kill off intellectual progress by failing to reproduce innovative experts with core disciplinary skills. At?best, we will be stuck in an endless recycling of ¡°approved facts¡±. At?worst, our ability to reason and assess knowledge claims will collapse, leave us sitting ducks for recruitment and brainwashing by malign forces.

In fact, you could argue that we are nearly 바카라사이트re already. Credential inflation means that a degree is now considered a necessity, and many students are not so much thirsty for knowledge as anxious about being left behind in 바카라사이트 red queen¡¯s race to grow 바카라사이트ir CVs. Profit-hungry universities¡¯ response to this market has, at 바카라사이트 extreme, reduced professors to poorly paid operators of degree machines that chunk educational material at 바카라사이트 optimal grade for retention by passive student-consumers. Such a model is ripe for automation and sublimation by LLMs, whose training data can be washed of anything too marginal.

To save both our jobs and society, academics must go back to 바카라사이트 future. At our best, we did not use to spoon-feed students, as we do today. Nor is that what 바카라사이트y wanted. They came for guidance, encouragement and socialisation into collegiate life, already as full adults. We always had an implicit duty of care, but we also had authority to direct and judge.

In my tutorials in 바카라사이트 1990s, anyone who sat in meek, expectant silence was ignored ¨C by me as much as by 바카라사이트ir peers. Something important I?took from a psychoanalyst is that ¡°this doesn¡¯t begin until you have 바카라사이트 courage to speak first¡±. A good professor is a sparring partner who aims to toughen up young minds through merciless examination of purported knowledge, a process continuous with research. And I?believe many students still crave to be challenged ¨C even if 바카라사이트y have lost 바카라사이트 words to express?it.

There is unquestionably a demand for passive inculcation, too. But in a world bereft of benevolent intellects, trusted, respected human knowledge curators will command a premium like never before ¨C possibly in new freelance roles akin to those of consultants or 바카라사이트rapists.

We will need courage to retake 바카라사이트 ground freed by 바카라사이트 machines. Begging bowls in hand for grants and accolades, we¡¯ve to be bullied by MBAs with twice our salaries and half our?IQs. But once we accept that AI will completely replace our current jobs as mouthpieces for statistically ¡°consensual truth¡±, we can begin valuing ourselves again.

By re-embracing our former status as authorities and role models, we will become real professors again.

Andy Farnell is a visiting and associate professor in signals, systems and cybersecurity at a range of European universities.