Comments
Enoan t1_j0l3h9o wrote
Seems the author of this piece didn't follow the first rule of commenting
miraclewhipple t1_j0lu5yy wrote
As someone who has never read Plato or similar works, where would I get started? It seems so daunting and intimidating.
Nahbjuwet363 t1_j0m4m8m wrote
You could do much worse than just starting with this specific dialogue, the Phaedrus. I would pick up a penguin or other paperback with a good introduction and editorial features. The fun and possibly surprising thing to keep in mind is that these aren’t really daunting works at all: they are dialogues with many familiar characteristics of literary works. Everything in them is worth paying attention to: set, setting, language, irony, character. They are sometimes even funny. I find them incredibly enjoyable to read and much more interesting and elusive than their reputation might suggest.
miraclewhipple t1_j0m4ue6 wrote
Appreciate you taking the time to respond. Will give it a whirl!
darrenjyc OP t1_j0m7g6k wrote
Completely agreed on this. The Meno, on whether virtue can be taught (but also many other things) is another great place to start. I believe the Lysis, a dialogue between Socrates and some Athenian youth on the meaning of friendship, had historically been a popular entry point into Plato, and has the advantage of being relatively short and focused (15 to 20 pages).
Will add though that certain Plato dialogues definitely are pretty daunting, long, and intellectually demanding (though they almost never lose their fun literary and dramatic elements as well). Some big works like the Theaetetus, Gorgias, the Statesman, and Parmenides are utterly brilliant though probably not good places to begin.
If you have questions about Plato you could ask them in the r/Plato sub.
Nahbjuwet363 t1_j0m87yz wrote
And I in turn am completely agreed with you :)
iiioiia t1_j0ly04b wrote
Invoking this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers
...and in turn, hilarity/tragedy ensues.
decrementsf t1_j0l8gz8 wrote
ChatGPT does everything current technology does for us, faster.
You can use technology to learn anything. Turn it into a useful tool to produce things you already understood 10x faster. With guidance from ChatGPT cut down on time spent looking up information you already more or less know, and can spot-check easily. Learning a new thing is a process of practice, and fast feedback loops. ChatGPT can be used to speed up your feedback loops checking your work to speed up repetition. You can learn programming languages faster by getting repetitions in 10x faster when playing with personal projects, shaves off the time burn digging through forums to debug issues.
You may have noticed a limitation in technology is the more specialized knowledge the less available resources. Purchase a production line piece of equipment for your home business, you can find nothing about it online. Have to rely on finding rare printed documentation from other businesses or others with experience in closed networks. ChatGPT is no different. It hits walls when prompted with processes not yet discovered and discussed. You have to guide the tool through from first principles. Can't do that without understanding the tool.
You can also waste time or over indulge in fear and anger storytelling outrage, consuming sugar far junk food information. Faster than ever. This will be a deeper discussion of resulting algorithm psychosis. We've never had more tools for bad information at the same time as having better information than ever accessible. This speeds up divides in humanity. Exterior signals regarding how people spend their time. Can we live with one another? Deep thought philosophers can stay busy with.
A nail gun in the hands of someone who doesn't know how to build a house does not create finished homes faster. Using a tool without understanding the fundamentals turns to nonsense. Will there be cheating? Yep. Your peers will notice. You will always have peers that do the hard work.
iiioiia t1_j0ly9ey wrote
ChatGPT often completely makes shit up though and states it as if it is a fact.
Nedink t1_j0m0n5g wrote
Yeah, just like people trying to be helpful on the internet.
iiioiia t1_j0m2tjt wrote
Right, but the contents of your message seemed to state only the positive subset of ChatGPT's attributes, and implied that it is good for error checking/etc without acknowledging that the things it says are often completely incorrect or nonsensical.
My hope is that the similarity of it's "cognition" to ours may force or encourage us to pay more serious attention to the nature and consequences of ours.
decrementsf t1_j0n8cf8 wrote
ChatGPT is rolling over what people have said on the internet. Then regurgitating it using statistics on steroids. Lots and lots of steroids.
You're going to get an amalgam of what people in the training data have said.
To add an example, if you ask it go provide a recipe for chocolate chip cookies it's going to do a pretty good job with common information like this. If you have familiarity with what chocolate chip cookie recipes usually look like, you'll catch the error if it recommends adding large quantities of ginger and cardamom to the recipe. You need to have some basic understanding of what results should look like. The credibility of outputs provided is greatest for common information, becoming less credible or unavailable in the underlying training sets the more novel your request (you're not going to get great overview of how the Helion nuclear fusion reactor works).
iiioiia t1_j0nfq4n wrote
Well, simple math is pretty common, and I've seen several examples online where it gets elementary school math wrong.
Based on what I've read about it, its behavior seems extremely similar to human cognition, I can't even imagine what the next version is going to be like, let alone 2-3 years from now. I think we are in a new era, this might be similarly disrupting as the internet was, maybe even more.
Dismal_Contest_5833 t1_j13wts4 wrote
the answrs wont make sense half the time. it would be useless to use chat gpt to complete a paper for a university course as depending on the subject, you have to cite sources, and the task may ask for ones opinion.
Randommaggy t1_j0liml3 wrote
Its not even a practical nailgun its an impractical one with a heavy V12 engine that needs specialized skills to wield without taking of a leg or killing your neighbors.
Its also tempting for people that does not understand the subject they are applying it to.
decrementsf t1_j0lp3ui wrote
> Its also tempting for people that does not understand the subject they are applying it to.
Oof. Bidding a contract from an actuaries view of risk and relevant parameters, against a financial industry sales team low ball bid. The long-term goes kaboom and everyone laments no one could see that coming.
The value in skill-stacking is the ability to see more parameters in your analysis. You can have equal credentials in your field as all of the other highly qualified candidates. The candidate who has a complimentary skill or two in their back pocket can see around corners the others can't. Useful understanding for personal development, and recruiting high-function teams.
JustAPerspective t1_j0mcli8 wrote
By making accomplished bullshit equally available to everyone, this puts the burden onto the people who sniff out the bullshitters & only deal with people who can actually walk the talk.
This will probably be an expensive learning curve for a number of companies.
[[The value in skill-stacking is the ability to see more parameters in your analysis. You can have equal credentials in your field as all of the other highly qualified candidates. The candidate who has a complimentary skill or two in their back pocket can see around corners the others can't. Useful understanding for personal development, and recruiting high-function teams.]]
You're talking about diverse perspectives & broad problem solving skills being more effective than specialization of multiple portions - is that correct?
If so, we find this to be true in many capacities that exceed capitalist matters, and honestly an essential component of evolution to the species - if everyone sees things the same way, they tend to end up with the same blindspots.
So, to answer OP's inquiry, Socrates may have found ChatGPT a most democratic tool, ultimately benevolent if used so, as people learn to look for the meaning in what is said.
Top_Net_123 t1_j0k5fqp wrote
There’s really no other possibility than properly including this technology in class. If it is really useful, students will certainly use it, at least to cheat. Interesting.
FartOfGenius t1_j0kd3n5 wrote
I haven't had much experience with the technology but surely it isn't that easy to get a good result, from what I've seen the AI spits out obvious BS if only infrequently and such problems would be easily seen by any careful teacher and penalized with a bad grade. Why not just make it permissible for everyone? That way it's fair game to use it, the playing field is even, and students who genuinely care are still going to turn out much more thoroughly proofread work than someone who submits lousy copy pasted material
dmarchall491 t1_j0liyh1 wrote
Using AI to write essays or complete assignments has the potential to undermine the educational process. It's important for students to develop their own writing skills and demonstrate their understanding of the material. While using AI may save time, it does not provide the opportunity for students to learn and grow as writers and critical thinkers.
Additionally, relying on AI to complete assignments can lead to a lack of original thought and creativity. It is important for students to be able to express their own ideas and perspectives in their work, rather than simply regurgitating information that they have obtained from an AI.
Furthermore, while AI may be able to produce coherent text, it may not fully understand the context or meaning of the words it is using. This can result in the production of nonsensical or factually incorrect information, which could be detrimental to the student's grades and overall learning experience.
Overall, while AI may be able to assist with certain aspects of writing, it is not a replacement for the hard work and critical thinking that is required to produce high quality academic work.
-- written by chatGPT
theyreinthebaghutch t1_j0ldiyf wrote
You should go check out chat gp. It is leaps and bounds beyond anything I have seen before. Honestly I'm blown away by the natural sound and well reasoned thinking it shows.
Top_Net_123 t1_j0kg7v0 wrote
Yeah, obviously it needs to be included in lessons. However, in exams it’d become problematic. I asked the AI about panopticon structures in Focault’s theories and it spat out a perfectly fine definition.
FartOfGenius t1_j0kggm8 wrote
Aren't exams usually held in person? And for things like term papers can the AI really structure everything perfectly to have thesis statements, arguments and evidence laid out and cited properly?
Top_Net_123 t1_j0kgp7x wrote
Yes, in person. But people are using the toilets and sometimes plant cellphones there. Difficult to spot this. I work as a teacher btw..:)
FartOfGenius t1_j0kjw5l wrote
This reminds me of chess cheating… I think it would be more reliable for the cheater to just Google answers than to use GPT in that case tho
skytram22 t1_j0mcyd4 wrote
I recently taught a few upper-level sociology courses, and I used essays to try to get students to engage in critical thinking (e.g., analyzing and applying theories). It took an inordinate amount of time and energy grade these compared to a more traditional exam, but I felt it was worth it.
With this, though... I'm concerned that a decently motivated student could take ChatGPT output, modify it in places where they feel comfortable in doing so, and bypass gaining the writing and analytical skills that I try to teach. I would love to incorporate this into an assignment, and I've got a few ideas how, but I'm still worried about how educators will assess the "higher" forms of cognition.
Top_Net_123 t1_j0mdbxc wrote
Well you can always do oral exams or grade the contribution in class?
skytram22 t1_j0mox20 wrote
I have tried grading in-class contribution/participation, but nothing I did motivated students to participate in a class of 50+ students. I just had 60% of students with zeroes, which my department did not accept, so they told me to change my grading policy mid-semester. I also had a few students come to office hours in tears because they felt too anxious to speak up in class. I do think that taking contribution into account for grading is great for seminar classes; as a grad student, though, I'm only given lecture-heavy courses. I design my own syllabi, but when I proposed a participation-based Intro to Sociology class, the professors just laughed and said no.
I have wondered about oral exams. I nearly flunked the one I had as an undergrad—I could not handle the pressure of my professor staring me down like that—but it does feel more straightforward. I will have to give that one some thought.
James_E_Fuck t1_j0m6ucd wrote
"such problems would be easily seen by any careful teacher and penalized with a bad grade."
As a teacher I can tell you this won't happen. At least not in the majority of public schools. It's going to reveal a huge crack in education. When a teacher has 200 students the idea that they can meaningfully know or provide feedback to all of them is an illusion. They are mostly graded based on their ability to complete the tasks we give them. If they are able to fake those tasks or have an AI do it for them, they will be able to get by without too much trouble unless they do something obviously dumb (and plenty will, I have students copy paste answers off Google all the time and they don't even change the formatting or take out obvious signs) but in a system like ours where there aren't any meaningful consequences for cheating, the benefits will outweigh the risks for students without an internal moral reason not to.
Top_Net_123 t1_j0mc8mv wrote
As a colleague, I can completely second your opinion. Time will tell how we can meaningfully react to these new circumstances.
James_E_Fuck t1_j0movnf wrote
We haven't caught up to the last 20 years of circumstances I don't think we're about to start now haha.
Top_Net_123 t1_j0ow36w wrote
Where do you teach? Germany here..:)
AncientShakthimaan t1_j0kl0e0 wrote
Everything is useful if used correctly but people...
xtralongleave t1_j0svhtn wrote
Plato believed that knowledge is eternal and exists independently of the material world. This means that Plato believed that there is a realm of eternal, unchanging truths or ideas that exists beyond the physical world we experience through our senses. Plato argued that these eternal ideas are more real than the material world, and that they serve as the basis for all knowledge and understanding.
Plato also believed that humans have the ability to access this eternal world of ideas through reason and contemplation. In other words, he believed that humans have the capacity to think deeply about the nature of reality and to understand the eternal truths that underlie the world we experience. According to Plato, this is the highest form of knowledge, and it can only be achieved through the use of our own reasoning and contemplation.
With regard to ChatGPT, Plato might view this type of artificial intelligence as a tool that can potentially help humans access knowledge and understand the world around them. By processing vast amounts of information and providing responses based on that information, ChatGPT can potentially help us learn and understand things that we might not be able to on our own. However, Plato might also caution against relying too heavily on artificial intelligence or machines to do our thinking for us. He might argue that true knowledge comes from within, and that it can only be fully realized through the use of our own reasoning and contemplation. In other words, while ChatGPT and other forms of artificial intelligence can be helpful in certain circumstances, they should not be relied upon too heavily, as they cannot replace the human capacity for thought and understanding.
[deleted] t1_j0jz483 wrote
[deleted]
BernardJOrtcutt t1_j0k52hi wrote
Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:
> Read the Post Before You Reply
> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
n_thomas74 t1_j0ll6jm wrote
Same since fire
Negative_Increase975 t1_j0lmosb wrote
This was an interesting read. The fact that education has survived google tells me that teachers will adapt to an essay generator bot. This is definitely a better read about recent developments than some of the hair on fire rhetoric I’ve read lately.
OptimisticBS t1_j0ly0uh wrote
It was bad enough with parents and tutors writing essays for kids, now we have this. And if you have read up on how US teachers have been doing/feeling over the past few years, giving us another obstacle to "adapt to" will just push even more people out of the field. I know history and English teachers that already have students do all of their written work at school to try to cut down on the cheating, which means less material can get covered in class time. It's not the end of the world, but it is another rung down on the ladder.
Negative_Increase975 t1_j0mk8of wrote
I taught high school English for 25 years - plagiarism is not something that came along with the internet. I used to have my students do all of their brainstorming outlining and planning in class and we still covered a full length novel, Shakespeare, poetry, short stories er al. This is another tool that educators will deal with regardless. It’s here and will only become more pervasive.
Grampachampa t1_j0lu1r3 wrote
Ngl, the only thing that gave that away for me is the essay-like “overall” in a Reddit post. Otherwise, you had me fooled
k0ik t1_j0m3f2n wrote
They really missed an opportunity here to simply train a GPT engine on the works of Plato, and then ask it what it would say.
Not a far fetched idea btw, see Podcast.ai or The Infinite Conversation.
dmarchall491 t1_j0p6vjb wrote
We can also just ask chatGPT to write what it thinks Plato would have argued:
> It is difficult to say for certain how Plato would argue for the use of AI in schools, as he lived over 2,000 years ago and did not have the benefit of modern technology. However, based on his philosophical writings, it is possible to speculate on how he might approach the subject. > > Plato was a strong believer in the power of education and the importance of seeking truth and knowledge. In his dialogue "The Republic," he outlines his vision for an ideal society, in which the education of young people is a central concern. He emphasizes the importance of teaching students to think critically and independently, and to develop their mental and moral capacities to the fullest. > > Given this focus on education and the cultivation of wisdom and virtue, it is likely that Plato would see the potential for AI to enhance and support the learning process. For example, he might argue that AI can be used to provide personalized and tailored instruction to students, helping them to progress at their own pace and to better understand the material they are learning. AI could also be used to provide a greater variety of educational resources and opportunities, allowing students to explore different subjects and areas of interest more deeply. > > Additionally, Plato might see the use of AI as a way to help students develop important skills for the future, such as problem-solving, critical thinking, and adaptability. These skills are likely to be increasingly important in the rapidly changing world of the 21st century, and the use of AI could provide students with valuable experience and practice in using these skills. > > Overall, while it is impossible to say with certainty how Plato would view the use of AI in schools, it is likely that he would see it as a valuable tool for supporting and enhancing the learning and development of young people. > -- written by chatGPT
intent_joy_love t1_j0m5oip wrote
I swear I read about how amazing chatGPT is every single day on Reddit. Not saying it’s all shills but there are definitely shills pushing it
dmarchall491 t1_j0p729w wrote
It is true that ChatGPT has received a lot of attention on Reddit and other online platforms, and there may be some individuals who are promoting it heavily in order to benefit financially or otherwise. However, it is also important to recognize that ChatGPT is a highly advanced language model developed by OpenAI, and it has the potential to be a valuable tool in a wide range of applications.
ChatGPT is trained on a massive dataset of human conversation, and it is capable of generating human-like text that is often difficult to distinguish from text written by a person. This makes it a useful tool for generating realistic dialogue for chatbots, virtual assistants, and other types of language-based systems. It can also be used for tasks such as translation, summarization, and text generation.
In terms of its potential impact, ChatGPT has the potential to revolutionize the way we interact with computers and machines, allowing us to communicate with them more naturally and easily. It could also be used to improve customer service, reduce the need for manual data entry, and assist with tasks such as language translation.
Overall, while it is important to be cautious about the hype and potential financial motivations behind some of the positive coverage of ChatGPT, it is also important to recognize the significant potential that this technology has to offer.
-- written by chatGPT
intent_joy_love t1_j0qby2d wrote
I’d rather go back to the world of dialup and browser based ISP than a world with advanced AI
warrant2k t1_j0m796f wrote
I just want to use it to help build my d&d world...
Dismal_Contest_5833 t1_j13wksk wrote
using Chat GPT to do homework would be kinda pointless, as students wouldnt really be learning how to write an essay. the answer chat gpt may give wont always make sense. if the student isnt using what they have learnt, then what was the point?
[deleted] t1_j0jzbv0 wrote
[deleted]
rstraker t1_j0knbsk wrote
Let the humans ask the questions, let the bots answer them. As god intended.
Nahbjuwet363 t1_j0kvnwf wrote
Same misreading of Plato found in her prior attempts to write about it. Can’t even tell us the name of the dialog. When a student writes that Plato condemns writing in the Phaedrus I know they didn’t even read the dialog. When a student writes that Thoth speaks for Plato I know they didn’t come to discussion (and didn’t read the dialog). But when a digital studies celebrity writes it they are doing philosophy in the New York Times.