ChatGPT Can Get Off My Lawn

By: - February 27, 2024

Source link

Will artificial intelligence become the greatest boon to higher education since online learning? (This assumes that online learning was a boon, which is a topic for another day.) Or will it mean the utter destruction of academia as we know it? Those are the two views I see expressed most often these days, with various individuals I respect taking opposite sides.

As someone who is naturally skeptical of this kind of over-the-top rhetoric, I believe the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Despite the forceful yet mixed messages surrounding AI and its applications to higher ed, I have so far in my work been affected by it very little. Although I could be wrong, I don’t expect to be much affected by it in the future.

So: Should I change the way I do everything to accommodate this latest “latest thing?” Or should I run for the hills and pray for the mountains to fall on me? Perhaps I should do neither, confident that the more attention a new toy receives, the less it probably deserves.

The suddenness with which AI arrived on campus last winter, in the form of ChatGPT, and the speed with which it became, overnight, all anyone was talking about, are reminiscent of other much-ballyhooed events of the not-too-distant past. Remember Y2K? Our computers would all stop working. Airplanes would fall from the sky. Civilization would be thrust back into the Stone Age. Yet, as I strongly suspected would be the case, none of that happened. It turned out to be a big “nothingburger,” as they say.

Or how about the introduction of the Segway scooter back in the early 2000s? Does anybody else remember the hype surrounding that? It was supposed to “fundamentally change” the way we all live. Spoiler alert: It didn’t.

More recently, I could point (with some trepidation) to the Covid panic of spring 2020, when we were treated to scenes of Chinese people dropping dead in the streets, shots of freezer trucks outside New York hospitals, and running death counts on the nightly news. The implication was clear: This respiratory disease was on par with Ebola or the Bubonic Plague. Yet none of that, or at least very little of it, was real.

It is now apparent that, if we subtract from the highly-publicized totals those who died with the virus as opposed to from the virus—as well as those whose deaths were actually caused by the treatments they received (or failed to receive) and those who died due to other “mitigation” measures such as lockdowns—the Covid “pandemic” amounted to little more than a couple of bad flu seasons, if that.

In other words, the pandemic, too, was mostly hype. It was never as bad as the government and public-health officials told us it was. But we bought into it, anyway. This has become a primary feature of modern society, the so-called “information age,” in which relatively minor events are regularly blown out of all proportion by the potent combination of “expert” opinion and media, especially social media.

The current obsession with all things AI seems to me to be just the latest iteration of this trend. I don’t think it will turn out to be a complete bust, like the Segway, but I do think it will soon become endemic, just part of the landscape, like Covid and flu. I may be wrong; time will tell. Perhaps a year or two from now I will be embracing AI enthusiastically and penning a giant mea culpa. But I doubt it.

Meanwhile, how should those of us who teach in non-computer-related fields respond to the existence of AI and all the hype surrounding it? As someone who teaches primarily college writing, I have colleagues who are enthusiastically embracing AI, changing all their assignments, and encouraging students to “work with it.” Although I like and respect many of those individuals, I take issue with their approach. As teachers of the humanities, in particular, we have a different job.

I was taught that the “humanities” encompass all that makes us uniquely human: art, literature, philosophy, and religion. The purpose of offering humanities courses is to help students more fully embrace their humanity—to think for themselves, expand their minds, explore and come to terms with their deepest hopes, dreams, and fears. Artificial intelligence, it seems to me, is the antithesis of all that, as even the very name suggests.

What, after all, is the reason for allowing students to use AI in the humanities classroom, much less encouraging them to do so and teaching them how? Because they will probably be using it at some point in their professional lives and maybe even in other courses? Fine. Let them learn how to use it elsewhere (if indeed they really needed to be taught). Because it “makes things easier for them?” What exactly are we making easier? Thinking? Why in the world would we want to do that?

Every humanities teacher knows that thinking well is hard work, that it does not come naturally to most people, that they therefore must discipline themselves to do it consistently, and that becoming a clear thinker is nevertheless a worthwhile pursuit because it brings great personal and professional rewards. For the life of me, I don’t understand why we would want students to do something that requires them to think less or suggests that turning their thinking over to a machine is a good idea.

And what about writing? One of the things I keep hearing from AI enthusiasts is that we can still teach thinking but allow students to use AI to help them express their thoughts. No, I’m sorry, it doesn’t work that way. Every writer understands, or ought to understand, that, in a very real sense, writing is thinking. They are not two separate activities. They are inextricably linked.

Indeed, one of the main ways we teach students to think is by teaching them to write—in their own words, in their own voice, engaging their own brains. Personally, I see no need to teach my students how to write like robots. They get enough of that in their high-school AP classes. Teaching them to write like real human beings—that is the challenge.

I alluded above to the fact that the swift and sudden advent of ChatGPT on college campuses was met with numerous pronouncements from on high. One of those, for me, came in the form of an email from my department chair, no doubt instigated by the dean and probably by the provost, informing us we were to include a “Statement on AI” in our syllabi. To their credit, those administrators didn’t tell us what the statement had to say or how we should approach the topic, just that we needed to let students know what we planned to do.

Fair enough. After giving the matter some thought, I wrote the following, which is now part of the syllabus for all my writing courses:

The main purpose of this course is to help you learn to express yourself, clearly and cogently, in your own unique voice: your thoughts and ideas, your emotions (where appropriate), your words. There is great value in that kind of authenticity, both personally and professionally. AI may be a useful tool for many things, but it cannot help you sound like the best version of yourself. It is also bad at following directions and tends to make things up, both of which can be grade-killers. For all these reasons, you MAY NOT use AI on any of your assignments in this course.

I try my best to structure the writing assignments so you can’t simply turn them over to ChatGPT. But of course I don’t always succeed, and clever students can often find a work-around. (Why they don’t just apply that cleverness to the assignments, I’ll never understand.) If I can prove that you used AI—and there are programs to help with that—you will receive a zero on that assignment. If I can’t prove it, but the writing sounds robotic—whether or not you actually used AI—you will almost certainly receive a lower grade than if you were writing in your own voice. (I’ve been reading essays that sounded like they were written by robots since long before AI came along. I refer to that as “AP Syndrome.”) A big part of what I’m trying to teach you is how to write in such a way that you sound like an actual, intelligent, unique human being, with personality, experiences, passions, and opinions, and not like some soulless computer program.

Can I actually prevent students from using ChatGPT or any other form of AI? Probably not. But through a carefully curated combination of teaching, encouraging, cajoling, a little bit of bluffing, and continually fine-tuning my assignments, I can at least make it more difficult for them to simply outsource their writing or thinking to the hive brain.

If that makes me old-fashioned, outmoded, shortsighted, hidebound, intransigent, uncool, or a stereotypical “Boomer,” so be it. I will always believe that my job is to help students learn to cultivate their own intelligence, not rely on the artificial kind.

So, hey, ChatGPT? Get off my lawn.

This article appeared first on Brownstone Institute under a Creative Commons License (CC BY 4.0).

Image credit: Unsplash


    • 'Shut Up and Sing' still applies to emotional celebs
      When Laura Ingraham wrote her book "Shut Up and Sing" in 2003, the Left didn't read the book as much as overreact to the title. The title implied something important. While celebrities gain a "platform" they feel compelled to use, do their opinions reflect any expertise? Or is fame more important than logic? Celebrities often… […]
    • Iran says it could pursue nuclear weapons if Israel threatens atomic sites
      (ZEROHEDGE) – Iran's leadership has always strongly asserted that it is not pursuing the development of nuclear weapons, but instead has long sought a peaceful nuclear energy program. Various Ayatollahs over the decades have even declared the atomic bomb to be 'unIslamic' and against the teachings of the Koran. But that could change, Iran's military… […]
    • Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for EVs
      By H. Sterling Burnett Electric vehicles (EVs) have been all the rage among politicians since at least President Obama's first term in office, but they've never really caught on among the unwashed masses. Average folks with jobs, shopping to do, errands to run and kids to transport actually want their cars to deliver them to… […]
    • Google fires 28 employees involved in sit-in protest over $1.2 billion Israel contract
      (NEW YORK POST) – Google has fired 28 employees over their participation in a 10-hour sit-in at the search giant’s offices in New York and Sunnyvale, California, to protest the company’s business ties with the Israel government, The Post has learned. The pro-Palestinian staffers — who wore traditional Arab headscarves as they stormed and occupied… […]
    • Growing Latino support for border wall … and for Trump
      A new poll by Axios and Noticias Telemundo finds that 42% of Latino Americans support building a wall or fence along the entire U.S.-Mexico border. When pollsters asked the same question in December 2021, the number was 30%. That's a significant increase as the border crisis created by President Joe Biden's policies worsens. It's also… […]
    • College suspends professor 'energized' by Hamas attack on Israel
      (THE COLLEGE FIX) – A tenured professor is suspended throughout the rest of the semester after writing an essay celebrating Hamas’ attack on Israel. “McCarthyism is real. I’ve been relieved of teaching responsibilities,” Hobart and William Smith Colleges Professor Jodi Dean wrote Saturday on X. “Don’t stop talking about Palestine.” Get the hottest, most important… […]
    • O.J. Simpson is dead – Ron & Nicole are unavailable for comment
      As to the double murder case against O.J. Simpson, there was so much evidence that his guilt was obvious. This evidence included, but was not limited to, blood at the crime scene and on and in Simpson's white Bronco; a bloody glove found at the crime scene and a matching glove found at Simpson's home;… […]
    • How Greg Norman saved the Clinton presidency and other golf stories
      In their weekly podcast, Hollywood veteran Loy Edge and longtime WND columnist Jack Cashill skirt the everyday politics downstream and travel merrily upstream to the source of our extraordinary culture. The post How Greg Norman saved the Clinton presidency and other golf stories appeared first on WND.
    • The deadly price for Obama's ongoing foreign-policy legacy
      If a belligerent state launched 185 explosive drones, 36 cruise missiles and 110 surface-to-surface missiles from three fronts against civilian targets within the United States, would President Joe Biden call it a "win"? Would the president tell us that the best thing we can do now is show "restraint"? What if that same terror state's… […]
    • Growing movement hopes to disenfranchise small-state voters
      The structure of the American government was designed by the founders to prevent raw majoritarianism: the three branches of government and their checks and balances, the allocation of power between the state and federal governments, constitutional limits on the federal government's power, the differing composition of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate,… […]
  • Enter My WorldView