comment: >
  
  Hell the only thing stopping me from using ChatGPT regularly for my work now is that it's always at capacity.
context: /u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
  All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
  Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  A 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.
  The vast majority of "homework" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.
  Fundamentally, 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. >
  
  
  A 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.
  
  How is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments? >
  
  I 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. >
  
  
  I 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.
  
  So anything but a one-on-one oral exam is busywork? Is that your contention?
  People don't need to acquire the skills to write comprehensibly? To be able to summarize or relate information in any way but a conversation? People don't need to be able to relate specifics? >
  
  As I said it separated people “who were just good at busy work”. The oral exams were only part of the work we did, and there were essays and research papers. But writing a paper on a super well feed topic can be done without having a very good grasp of the material particularly when there’s a ton published about the topic already. Having to answer probing questions in the spot is a lot harder. >
  
  So, again, everything but the oral exam your professor gave is busy work? >
  
  What's with this false dilemma?
  A lot of stuff that is currently assigned is busy work. An oral exam is not.
  That doesn't mean everything but the oral exam is busy work, just that it's a solid alternative, and one of many. A traditional piece of homework can be done well to evaluate understanding, but is not always done well. An oral exam, overall, is more likely to yield a better analysis of a student's understanding, though is of course not without its own flaws (especially, that a shy student and a non-understanding student can be hard to tell apart). >
  
  
  What's with this false dilemma?
  A lot of stuff that is currently assigned is busy work. An oral exam is not.
  That doesn't mean everything but the oral exam is busy work, just that it's a solid alternative, and one of many. A traditional piece of homework can be done well to evaluate understanding, but is not always done well. An oral exam, overall, is more likely to yield a better analysis of a student's understanding, though is of course not without its own flaws (especially, that a shy student and a non-understanding student can be hard to tell apart).
  
  There's no false dilemma. I've asked you what you consider not busy work and your only answer is your professor had an oral exam.
  So I asked if that is the only thing you don't consider busy work. You've given no other examples of anything you don't think is busy work. >
  
  Like I said, traditional homework can be done well. And if done well, it is not busy work. >
  
  
  Like I said, traditional homework can be done well. And if done well, it is not busy work.
  
  That's on the student, not the teacher, class,, etc. If a student doesn't care, they don't care. >
  
  Who 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?
  Would not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning. >
  
  I will not argue the efficacy of homework.  That was not part of the CMV.
  I assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.
  Regarding 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.  
  These 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. >
  
  
  I will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.
  
  That'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. >
  
  Exams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.
  Perhaps 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.
  A 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.
  This 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.
  Your plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students. >
  
  If 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? >
  
  Generally 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. >
  
  That's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up. >
  
  With guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions. >
  
  The creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other  writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible "watermarks" in the writing.
  And 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.
  It'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.
  So 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. >
  
  How are watermarks ever going to work in text?
  I 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.
  Images 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.
  I worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.
  If 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. >
  
  As 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.
  ​
  
  If 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.
  
  When 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. >
  
  The students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.
  From the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort. >
  
  At 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.
  There 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. >
  
  There 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.
  If 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.
  Currently 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.
  Also 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. >
  
  ChatGPT 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. 
  Surely 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.
  So 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.
  While 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. >
  
  I 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.
  For 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. >
  
  I 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.
  I 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.
  It 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)
  And 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. >
  
  
  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.
  
  All 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. 
  In 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. >
  
  And are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?
  
  All 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 the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use >
  
  I 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. >
  
  Chatgpt 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. >
  
  Two 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. 
  And 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. >
  
  
  Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.
  
  This 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.
  Yesterday 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.
  This 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. >
  
  I 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. 
  Eventually, 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. >
  
  Yeah 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. >
  
  
  don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea
  
  Your phone has a world map as a built-in app. >
  
  But 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. 
  People here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing). >
  
  I 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. >
  
  I 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. 
  I 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. >
  
  This 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.
  Think 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.
  ChatGPT 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.
  ChatGPT 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.
  Human 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.
  ChatGPT 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. >
  
  
  ChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work
  
  It's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. 
  It'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"). 
  It'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.
  Basically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans. >
  
  
  it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.
  
  Maybe, 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. 
  Sure, 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. >
  
  Sure, I totally agree. 
  Today we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. 
  ChatGPT 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. 
  Of course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. 
  But 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. >
  
  
  Today we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. 
  
  Why? 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. 
  
  ChatGPT 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. 
  
  Why? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? 
  Let'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. 
  
  But 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.
  
  Totally 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. >
  
  For 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.
  Chat 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). 
  Same for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones. 
  So 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. 
  Or 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. 
  But 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. 
  And 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. >
  
  There is currently two better solutions being worked on - one of which is already being used to some degree. 
  The 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. 
  Another 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. >
  
  What 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. >
  
  I've seen a few key things from academics testing out ChatGPT (I have not signed up myself):
  
  It tends to produce confident, convincing nonsense. It doesn't actually understand what it's writing about, and I hear it shows.
  It 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.
  
  This suggests that, for assignments requiring the demonstration of genuine, in-depth understanding, and not merely the ability to summarize facts, ChatGPT will fail.
  A 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). >
  
  There are three criticisms that I have of this approach. 
  
  
  Should 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. 
  
  
  Can 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. 
  
  
  An 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. >
  
  
  
  homework in the form of essays, take home tests, coding assignments, would be completed on school grounds. 
  
  
  Congratulations, you've invented the "cram school".
  I'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".
  My 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.
  It 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.
  This 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. >
  
  What about pen and ink? >
  
  arguably I can just copy a ChatGPT output by hand.   So I think that is a first level measure, but not a complete solution. >
  
  It's a better solution than prison just because the curriculum can't keep up with technology.
  When 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? >
  
  Well 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.
  It forced us to memorize equations, principals of engineering, and independent thinking.  I’m a better engineer because I did. >
  
  So 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?
  Also, your view was about K12 students, not engineering students. >
  
  No.  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.
  However, 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. >
  
  
  You should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator
  
  But why?
  
  You should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google
  
  Again, why?
  Where do you get your "should" from?
  I 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?
  Do you envision some Saw-like situation where you're locked to a wall and need to solve maths equations at pain of death? >
  
  The 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.
  Depending too much on outside forces will make you helpless. >
  
  Is 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.
  
  Depending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.
  
  The weakest man with a gun can take out the strongest bodybuilder. >
  
  And if you decide Tik tok and Netflix are important? How do you think that will affect the cognitive ability of kids?
  I 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) >
  
  Couldn't chatgpt (or somesuch AI) be asked "Hey - did you write this?" and nip this sort of thing in the bud? >
  
  No, 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. >
  
  Well, strike that idea then.
  Still though - there must be some way to use AI to deal with this. "set a thief to catch a thief" and all that. >
  
  Chat GPT (and most generative AIs) use GANs to generate content. 
  In 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. 
  So 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. >
  
  ChatGPT is just another mechanism for reducing the need for labor, and it's not going away. 
  Children 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. 
  Also: 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. 
  But 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. 
  People 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. 
  Forcing 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. 
  It would be better to give them all prewritten ChatGPT essays and have them learn the limitations and capabilities. >
  
  Is 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 >
  
  The answer is NEVER to limit technology. It’s to teach the new generation how to use that technology to achieve the same goal.
  It’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.
  ChatGPT 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. >
  
  I 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.
  It made us better engineers. >
  
  How 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? >
  
  The 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. 
  Once 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. >
  
  The 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. >
  
  At 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?
  That is what ChatGPT is doing for essays >
  
  There are things called pencil and paper. >
  
  As 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. >
  
  Why don't you consider that research? 
  The first source was the best. It's incredibly efficient research IMO. >
  
  The 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.
  over 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.
  The 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.
  If 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.
  and 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 >
  
  Rather 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? 
  If 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.
  Rather 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? >
  
  AI 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.
  In 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?
  Relying 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). >
  
  
  AI 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.
  
  This 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.
  Imagine if students were outsourcing all their history, psychology, sociology and philosophy homework to a chatbot with a 1950s understanding of those subjects.
  Imagine doctors outsourcing psych patient diagnoses to a chatbot with the same understanding.
  On 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.
  How about politics and political science in general... ha!
  Etc, etc etc.
  It 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.
  Even 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. >
  
  These are all moralistic arguments that ultimately don’t mean anything. >
  
  I would say they are more epistemic arguments, which do matter greatly in the context of education (which is what the op was referring to). >
  
  Are 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?
  No. Lol and even if someone did, who cares? >
  
  Considering 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.
  If 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." >
  
  Who is suggesting we do anything “just because an AI said so”? 
  Do you read books and think everything in it is true “because the book says so”? >
  
  How do you determine if what the book/ai said is false?
  You would typically do it through a process of research and discovery.
  Peoples' 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).
  Therefore, reliance on AI will lead to us losing the ability to discern if the results of what the AI is saying is correct. >
  
  What? Lol that doesn’t make any sense at all. 
  It is not like if we use AI then all previous knowledge is simply forgotten or lost. It’s all still there. >
  
  Forcing 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.
  Anyway, the change is here, and it made essays irrelevant. Time to find another way to test people skills. 
  Give it a little time though. ChatGPT costs a ginormous amount of money to run and will not stay free for long either. >
  
  It'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. >
  
  Having 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.
  No 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.
  I 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. >
  
  There are already tools to identify ChatGPT generated texts. Such tools will improve as another use of literally the same technology.
  Just as teachers submit essays for identifying plagiarism, teachers will submit essays for identifying AI-generated text.  
  Further, 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. >
  
  Students 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. 
  As 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.