slantedangle t1_jabwimo wrote
Why would anyone be allowed to quote Chatgpt in their essay?
What value would a teacher see in quoting a chatgpt for their student? How does quoting a Chatgpt improve education?
I can possibly see using it to get a summary, for ones own reading compression on a topic. But not as a source to quote from for your essay. It's built on top of language models. Essentially, it mimicks our writing. Depending on what you feed it, "sometimes good, sometimes like shit."
despitegirls t1_jaby6w1 wrote
I'm trying to understand that myself. Perhaps if you used it to summarize work that you created? I can't see trusting it as a source for information since it doesn't provide sources to where it has learned information, at least by default. This is something that Microsoft's implementation in Bing actually does.
slantedangle t1_jac0yi1 wrote
>Perhaps if you used it to summarize work that you created?
I would want my students to learn and practice how to summarize work on their own.
The only good reason I can think of would be in the context of mass summaries. Chatgpt would be good at creating many summaries all at once. It's scalable. As an experimental tool or to show examples and patterns. I can't see any justifiable uses for students in a typical classroom, and certainly not for submitting work on behalf of the student, instead of the student writing it themselves.
> I can't see trusting it as a source for information since it doesn't provide sources to where it has learned information, at least by default.
I wouldn't trust it, at all. It's not just the source information. Even if it pulled from good sources, it doesn't perform any comprehension or logic or reasoning of the content. The way it works is through a language model. It arranges words together much like a glorified auto complete does. It doesn't check to see whether what it wrote is coherent or correct.
TeaKingMac t1_jacxmf5 wrote
>How does quoting a Chatgpt improve education?
Yeah, ChatGPT is like a tertiary or worse level source. If Wikipedia is an unacceptable source, ChatGPT is at least an order of magnitude worse
freediverx01 t1_jaccjq7 wrote
Sounds to me like this rule was written by people with no clue what chatGPT is or how it works.
jews4beer t1_jad50a0 wrote
It's a copy/paste of how they handled Wikipedia
DavidBrooker t1_jadh8w2 wrote
What does the value of quoting a chatbot, or what does the improvement afforded by quoting a chatbot, have to do with what should be allowed? What is and is not allowed is an ethical issue, not one of pedagogy. Being lazy and unoriginal is allowed already, this is just a new means of being lazy and unoriginal so long as it isn't also done unethically.
A teacher is still free to give an F for someone who writes an essay full of block quotes to ChatGPT. They're just not obligated to give an F and recommend disciplinary action.
Odysseyan t1_jaedn2l wrote
The better question is HOW do you cite it? It doesn't save your texts and you can't link them for review. Can I just state whatever and say that it was ChatGPT then?
"Hitler did nothing wrong" - chatGPT
Badtrainwreck t1_jacceq3 wrote
Not all writing is about the actual writing part, but mostly about comprehension, essay format, and proper citations. It’s like math, some might question why use a calculator for math, but it’s not about working math out by hand it’s about learning how to solve the problems.
slantedangle t1_jacw16h wrote
>Not all writing is about the actual writing part, but mostly about comprehension, essay format, and proper citations.
Writing an ESSAY, which I believe is this context, is an exercise in sourcing, reading comprehension, critical thinking, grammar, spelling, sentence structure, document process, among other things.
>It’s like math, some might question why use a calculator for math, but it’s not about working math out by hand it’s about learning how to solve the problems.
We work out math problems by hand in order to learn the operations and sequences, exercise the computation, practice the writing of symbols, translate problems to rigor, among other things.
Admittedly, it's not about the hand eye coordination and fine motor skills. I will presume are not talking about that.
Quoting chatgpt would arguably, to lesser and more degrees, depending on the nature of the essay or curriculum, circumvent many of these skills which are learned in conjunction, by writing essays (and doing math).
Swamptor t1_jadscvd wrote
What if you were writing an essay about chatGPT or the history of chatbots or something like that? Of course you can quote it. Saying you can't quote it would be categorically insane. You can quote literally anything.
ixid t1_jac6dlg wrote
Because it often provides a well-written and clear summary of topics that are widely discussed on the internet, which would include most school level topics. So ultimately the student is more likely to understand and retain the knowledge if they read it and think about it.
slantedangle t1_jac8uj2 wrote
Even if you used chatgpt for READING comprehension, you wouldn't want them to quote it for submitting an essay. You would always want them to quote the source in homework or a test or a thesis, something the student WROTE. Hopefully the context wasn't lost on you.
ixid t1_jac9l1l wrote
We're talking about pre-university level education, talking about quoting sources is rather grandiose. Most kids just look at the textbook and wikipedia. ChatGPT is not even lowering the level. Hopefully the context wasn't lost on you.
slantedangle t1_jacarc1 wrote
>We're talking about pre-university level education, talking about quoting sources is rather grandiose.
And yet that is precisely what we are talking about here, isn't it?
>Most kids just look at the textbook and wikipedia. ChatGPT is not even lowering the level. Hopefully the context wasn't lost on you.
Then he already has a source, no? What is the point of quoting the chatgpt rather than the source? I see the point of READING the chatgpt. Not QUOTING it. Apparently the context was indeed lost on you.
ixid t1_jacaxvq wrote
It's a pity schools can't teach people not to be bellends. You'd have benefited.
slantedangle t1_jacy34k wrote
>It's a pity schools can't teach people not to be bellends. You'd have benefited.
It's a pity schools don't teach people to just stop or say "I don't know", when they can't answer a question, instead of relying on ad hominems to end their conversations. You'd have benefitted.
ixid t1_jad0hb4 wrote
It's not an ad hominem, it's an insult, dummy. Check what ad hominem means.
slantedangle t1_jae3fp3 wrote
You can certainly use insults to deliver an ad hominen, there are others, such as attacking character or reputation or with motive. Ad hominen is used to describe a strategy in which a person using it will focus on the person making an argument rather than the content of the argument.
ixid t1_jaed3j7 wrote
ad hominem: you're wrong because you're a dick.
Insult: you're a dick.
I was doing the second of those because of your extremely condescending tone.
Lunarlights1 t1_jada1sc wrote
Why shouldn’t we use chatgp? Why should we actually learn? I’m confused
SidewaysFancyPrance t1_jadyt2z wrote
ChatGPT is at least one step removed from the actual source material, and ChatGPT isn't trying to be "right." You should just bypass ChatGPT and go to actual source material instead of asking a language AI to try to summarize it for you, knowing that it will often confidently present you with wrong information.
Lunarlights1 t1_jadbxuf wrote
I’m actually not being sarcastic
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments