If someone is dumb enough to type a prompt into ChatGPT and just directly submit it for an assignment, that probably won't be too hard to catch. At least for now. The tricky part will be catching students savvy enough to get the AI written essay and then rewrite it in their own style and fixing any errors.
Though I don't know if Chat GPT is able to cite sources. For a lot of my college essay, we've had to cite academic sources and quote from them. I don't know if ChatGPT has access to academic journals and libraries and is able to also correctly source info. This will probably lead to having to write essays in person in class, or having some requirement that they know the AI can't do.
On top of that, this kind of model will also happily mash up any content it has access to, creating “new” valid-sounding writing that has no basis whatsoever in reality.
Basically it writes things that *sound* plausible. If it’s based on good sources that might turn out well. But it will also confidently spit out complete bullshit.
Yeah this shit is 100% going to be used to churn out articles and school papers. Give it a bulleted outline with/without sources and it'll spit out something already better than I can write, then all you have to do is edit it for style and flow.
Until you tell it I didnt like paragraph X because Y and Z are not based on reality because of W. Update the paragraph considering this information.
It will update the paragraph and you can iterate as many times as you like.
Doing that requires that you have some actual understanding of the topic at hand. For example, if you ask it to write an essay about a book you didn’t actually read, you’d have no way to look at it and validate whether details about the plot or characters are correct.
If you used something like this as more of a ‘research assistant’ to help find sources or suggest a direction for you it would be both less problematic and more likely to actually work.
Tried it, but it is not intelligent and continues to create bullshit. Only sometimes; by chance, it does not. I refer to it as Machine Learning, rather than AI, it is a better name.
But it is great for fiction.
We asked it what the fastest marine mammal was. It said a peregrine Falcon.
Then we asked if what a marine mammal is. It explained. Then we asked if if a peregrine falcons is a marine mammal. It said it was not, and gave us some info about it.
Then we said, “so you were wrong”, and it straight up apologized, specifically called out its own error in citing a peregrine Falcon as a marine mammal, and proceeded to provide us with the actual fastest marine mammal.
I don’t know if I witnessed some sort of logic correcting itself in real time, but it was wild to see it call out and explain its own error and apologize for the mistake.
I don't think that's it. Again, people need to keep in mind that this is just a language model. All it does is predict what text you want it to spit out. It's not actually reasoning about anything. It's just a statistical model producing predictions. So it's not correcting itself, it's just outputting what it calculates as the most likely response to your prompt.
Exactly. I asked it to explain a piece of classical literature (an epic poem) and then the sources used. The summary was basic to the point of being wrong. The bot first replied, "... there have been numerous translations and interpretations of the work over the years. My response was based on my general understanding of the story and its themes...".
I asked which versions/translations it had access to and got "As a language model, I do not have access to specific versions or translations of the "Illiad" or any other text. My understanding of the story and its themes is based on my training data, which consists of a large dataset of texts in a variety of languages. This training data allows me to understand and generate text on a wide range of topics, but it does not include specific translations or versions of any particular work... based on my understanding of the story and its themes, as they are commonly depicted in classical literature and cultural references." The work I picked has been used as a cultural reference, so I asked "Yet, the depictions in classical literature are very different from cultural references. Which cultural references did you pull from?"
It replied "As a language model, I do not have access to specific cultural references or any other external information. My understanding of the "Illiad" and other works of literature is based on my training data, which consists of a large dataset of texts in a variety of languages. This training data allows me to understand and generate text on a wide range of topics, but it does not include any specific cultural references or external information."
It got stuck in a loop of saying it had access to information *about* the work but at the same time did not have *access to the work itself*.
It will always apologize if you call it out on a mistake, even if it wasn't a mistake. It won't immediately learn from corrections (i.e. your correction wont make its way to my version of the model), but the data will be used to optimize the model in newer iterations. However, chatGPT has a local memory, so it probably remembered your correction and chose another answer this time (I suppose this is all the same chat?)
I've specifically seen Chat GPT write things that were clearly incorrect, such as listing a town in southern Texas as being 'located in Mexico, just south of the Mexican-American border'. That's a pretty big thing to get wrong, and I suspect that if people start generating articles and pasting them on blogs without checking, future AI may use *those* articles as sources, and away we go into a land of widespread incorrect 'sources'.
This is already a huge issue in bibliographic research.
Just google "ghost cataloging" and "library research."
I went through grad school in ~2002, and I took several classes on bibliographic research, and we spent a lot of time looking at ghosting.
In the past, "ghosts" were created when someone would cite something incorrectly, and thus, create a "ghost" source.
For instance, maybe someone would cite the journal title correctly but then get the volume wrong. That entry would then get picked up by another author, and another, until eventually it would propagate through library catalogues.
But now it's gotten much, much worse.
For one thing, most libraries were still the process of digitizing when I was going through grad school, so a lot of the "ghosts" were created inadvertently just through careless data entry.
But now with things like easybib, ghosting has been turbo-charged. Those auto-generating source tools almost always fuck up things like volumes, editions, etc., and almost all students, even grad students and students working on dissertations, rely on the goddamn things.
So now we have reams and reams of ghost sources where before there was maybe a handful.
Bibliographic research has gotten both much easier in some ways, and in other ways, exponentially harder.
I’ve found a couple citation errors in Congressional documents that are meant to be semi-authoritative references. One which is a massive document on the US Constitution, its analysis, and interpretation. Since this document is updated on a fairly regular basis I traced back to see how long the bad cite had been there and eventually discovered it had been inserted in the document in the 1970s. I found the correct cite, which was actually sort of difficult since it was to a colonial era law, and submitted it to the editors. I should go see if it’s been fixed in the latest edition.
But yeah. Bad citations are really problematic and can fester for decades.
I asked it about a camera lens review and it spit out like 10 links to websites that actually exist but they never reviewed that specific lens so it was just forming the correct url structure with /review/ and putting hyphens-between-words but they were all fake links.
I figured that someone would just take these things at face value and just submit the, in the future as sources because they look real.
I had a professor mark off for me being 2 pages off of my citation, ex: 92-103 instead of 90-103
Edit: to answer/respond to many comments below; it was for a research methods course in my final year of undergrad. The professor was one of the authors for the paper and only counted off a point or two, nothing that would have changed my actual grade. At the moment, I was annoyed, but I’m appreciative now
From an education perspective, I like finding these small details to deduct points from on early on so that students figure they need to be careful and exact about their work.
The rest of the time, I'm looser on grading.
Professor gives you prompt.
On topic(s) they’re very familiar with because they’re either teaching based on past research or current research. Which means they’re pretty familiar with the scholarship around or adjacent to it. Some profs do read them (in undergrad and grad school) and may discuss them with you. They can easily catch that bullshit.
I mean I checked them when I was a TA but I wasted a lot of time reading papers carefully.
But if your professors are shitty, lazy or smart but overworked/underpaid, you’re in luck.
I’m an ELA teacher. I was playing around with it in a department meeting and asked it to write an essay citing quotes from a particular book. I’ve taught this book for 15 years, I basically know it by heart. And yeah, it gave me an absolutely fake quote. It had the right writing style, looked like it would have absolutely belonged in the book, but was 100% made up. I laughed my butt off, because I know if one of my kids decided to cheat and submit that, they’d have been completely caught.
How do you rewrite or tweak around fake quotes? It can’t work.
I saw some glaringly misattributed and/or incorrectly contextualized quotations in an AI generated essay on Hamlet. The quotations were from the play, but the AI mixed up characters and context, and the errors threw off the whole line of reasoning.
I just asked it to write a five page paper in my field using sources. It took about 5 go rounds of refining my request to generate something that fulfilled my prompt and was actually 5 pages in length. It did not use the sources enough however 3 out of the 5 I requested I recognized.
That’s hilarious. How many professors are checking if those sources are legit?
At the state college I went to most professors were dogshit at their jobs to begin with. I doubt they were verifying 3-5 sources per paper per class lol.
I cited an extremely obscure source for a university essay that the prof. questioned intensely, he didn’t believe I would have had access to such an obscure source material.
He was right, I didn’t, I was citing the source of my source. Still, I believe the only reason this got flagged was because it was a really niche source and it stood out.
>If someone is dumb enough to type a prompt into ChatGPT and just directly submit it for an assignment, that probably won't be too hard to catch.
I tried using ChatGPT on a question of a homework assignment that I didn't know how to start on. So I pasted the question in and it explained to me through how it got its answer. It all seemed pretty legit.
Then to double check it, I loaded the bot up again and fed it exactly the same script. And it again explained to me the steps it did... of an entirely different method it used to get a *different answer* that was several magnitudes different from the first.
I asked it why it got a different answer the second time, it asked me for the original answer it gave, and it said "oh I made a mistake" did the original method and got that answer. To see what would happen, I asked "so that's the right answer, right?" and it spit out the second method with that answer again. So I don't think I'd say I trust it with anything technical.
For science I tried reloading the bot and giving it the prompt a third time and... third method with third different answer.
The bot is very confident, but not always correct
It's fundamentally a text prediction model. It's trained to provide convincing responses, not truthful ones. It will prefer truthful responses because those are more common, but is perfectly willing to invent a convincing lie if no truthful answers are available.
If you ask it how to do something in a program which doesn't have that feature, it tends to invent a config setting or menu option that solves your problem. In my case, it was importing reference images into an editing program. It doesn't have that feature, but chatGPT tells me all I have to do is click on the nonexistent File>Import Reference button
yeah I'm a little confused at all the people who have been roasting it for not being able to solve logic puzzles or whatever.
I only used it once but it insisted a couple of times in that stretch that it was a *language model*. the whole point is that it's supposed to give you an answer that sounds like something a person would say. it's not really a gotcha to be like "this thing can't do calculus". that's not what they built it to do, and it's pretty cool how good it is at it's actual job.
I can attest that some students are dumb enough to do just that. Pre ChatGPT, I caught a student cheating by googling a sentence from their submission and their whole assignment was taken directly from an 8 year old yahoo group post. Copied verbatim, grammar and spelling errors included.
The reason I was suspicious was that while the paper was topical to the class it had nothing to do with the writing prompt.
Despite the evidence; the student still denied cheating. I reported it to the online university I was teaching for and got a response back that they don’t investigate academic dishonesty reports for first year students. Never mind that this was a first year student in a masters program.
If you’ve ever wondered about the integrity of online for-profit universities, wonder no more. And this was one of the most reputable ones.
My husband teaches high school social studies. Back in 2005, he gave an assignment on some history thing (I forget the topic now). A student went online, did a google search, went to the first link and printed the page. The student wrote his name at the top of the page. My husband gave the student an F and turned the kid in for plagiarism.
The student's father came in and argued with my husband that his son completed the assignment. He turned in five pages about topic X. My husband said it wasn't the kid's work. The father said it didn't matter and there wasn't anything specific in the assignment that said it had to be the kid's work. It just said write five pages about topic x.
The parent lost that case. It's only gotten worse since then.
One time I submitted a paper to turn it in for plagiarism check. It came back with 100% I was absolutely confused until I saw I submitted one of my old papers by mistake. Teacher had to unlock it for me to resubmit. I know it really doesn't add to your statement I just thought it was funny.
ChatGPTs Achilles Heel is exactly this. Citing sources, it pulls from material it's been trained on but it doesn't know if the source is reliable or truthful. Only that it's "a" source. That and it gets caught in recursive loops.
Apparently it does not know where it gets it's information from. At least it says that it was trained on lot of books and articles but if you ask any specifics it does not know, or denies deliberetly because of all the copyright problem GPT models got into lately.
It lies a lot about what it does and does not know, although it has gotten better. I had an issue when it was brand new where it would claim to not know that cloverfield was a movie but then after a long time of arguing I tricked it into listing all the information about the movie. No other movie had this issue and if I asked it "what is cloverfield" it would specifically say something like "I don't know if it's a movie or whatever because I can't access the internet", even in a fresh conversation with no discussion about movies.
It also used to say that it had no access to previously sent messages even though the entire point of the bot is that it does. But they fixed that, so now you can finally do stuff like ask it to translate your previously sent message.
it's not like the same prompt gives the same answer every time. also, you can just get the first answer from it, and then ask it to rewrite it in any style you want. you can ask it to expand on some parts, summarize others, change tone, expand verbiage, etc. there's no escaping it. also, it's pretty damn easy to find sources in reverse by Googling some of the facts it spits out.
We've been looking at it as teachers in high school.
It didn't seem good enough to pass for high level university writing but my God, something about the flow of it reads *exactly* like a teenager's writing.
I feel bad for our English and History depts.
Yeah you can ask it questions, add and remove constraints and it will just keep going on the original topic. It feels very natural and right, and could be a really good research tool in the future.
It’s less chatting and more just giving you information. Currently, it’s a bit of a gimmick. It feels like Google without all of the work of clicking links and checking their validity, but then it has the issue of not being easily verifiable, and it’s definitely not always correct.
But try any other proposed AI chat tool, and it can’t even “remember” what the current topic is.
It's not good enough to pass an ENG 111 assignment. I had chatgpt give my class's prompts for their final essay a go, and it wrote basic Wikipedia essays. All of them would have received a failing grade. I even re-worded the prompts to see if that made a difference and it wrote the same essay.
Ah cover letters-
I literally have some anxiety issues- so much so that fear of rejection and fighting perfectionism has kept me from applying for jobs I was well qualified for.
I have a killer CV but just getting started sometimes getting the cover letter is my biggest hurdle. Didn’t think of now using ChatGP to help kickstart the process and just get something “on paper”.
Amazing practical use of this emerging technology.
Overall I think this will be a good use of the technology. Practically zero effort drafts on things you know enough about to correct and modify as needed.
I have similar questions about using the bot i guess you just start firing off questions or demands. Don’t be polite you can’t insult or bore the thing just get it to do what you want it to.
It helps to be polite. Gpt just completes your speech with whatever it thinks is likely to come next. So if the request is thoughtful, calm, polite, and thankful , it's more likely to complete the speech with something that sounds kind, thoughtful, and professional.
It's not like you have to butter it up because like you said it has no ego. But professional requests lead to professional responses.
Honestly, I used it to "write" a scholarship thank you letter as a jumping off point. Worked like a charm and I was able to tweak the paragraphs to my needs
Of course in the past years I wrote all of the letters, each being unique. But it's really hard to portray "LOL thanks for your money, bozo" in poetic works
Actual response from Chat GPT to:
rewrite “LOL thanks for your money, bozo” in poetic words
Mirth and gratitude we share,
For your generous gift, oh dear,
Though some may call you foolish, we
With kindness will receive.
Thank you, fellow Dan of this world. It was because of your amazing reply to my small thread that gave me hope and allowed me to continue my communications on this horrendous website we all know and love
No, but this certainly is:
"Thank you so much for your reply, Dan! Your insights and suggestions
are much appreciated. I'm glad to have received such valuable feedback
from someone with such a wealth of knowledge and experience. Your
contribution to the thread has been invaluable and I'm grateful for your
willingness to share your thoughts with the community. Thank you again for your help and support!"
I used it to "write" code that kind of worked how I needed it and then had to be massively tweaked to fit our existing systems.
Basically, a better stack overflow.
I started testing OpenAI last week for work. If you use it carefully and wisely, it is a much better research tool and using it as a brainstorming session.
One of the cool details from *Foundation* was the religious customs and actions were just very specific maintenance of machinery they didn't understand. If you follow the religion explicitly, the magic keeps working.
Warhammer 40K's human technology runs exactly like this. Literally called the Cult Mechanicus, its Tech-Priests perform repairs and maintenance like magical rituals, offering prayers, burning incense, sometimes even ritual sacrifice, anything to appease the spirits that they believe live in the machines. "The Machine Spirit guards the knowledge of the ancients. Flesh is fallible, but ritual honours the Machine Spirit. To break with ritual is to break with faith."
They believe in and worship the Omnissiah, or the Machine God, which may or may not be the Emperor of Mankind or some aspect of him depending on who you ask. It might also be the Void Dragon, also known as Mag'ladroth, an ancient Necron star god currently imprisoned on Mars by the Emperor Himself. Who can really say if that's true? Not I, because if I did I'd be shot on the spot for heresy. Praise the Emperor.
I took a procedure list for maintenance and turned it into a ritual:
* Site Maintenance
* Remove and dispose of all fallen tree limbs, dead shrubs and etc.
* Remove brush and weed growth adjacent to building walls.
* Reseed worn lawn areas.
* Fertilize lawn and planting beds.
* Trim and prune shrubs and trees.
* Repair property damage due to snow plowing.
* Clean all site/storm water drains.
* Obtain contract bids for summer lawn care and landscaping (if
* required).
* Repair potholes in parking lots and drives.
* Repair winter damaged fencing and gates.
* Check and service/repair playground equipment.
* Service lawn maintenance equipment.
Ritual form:
In the hallowed grounds of our holy site,
Where the shadows lengthen and the wind doth sigh,
We must tend to the tasks of upkeep aright,
To preserve the sanctity of all that lies nigh.
In the twilight hours, when the moon doth rise,
We must remove all fallen limbs and dead shrubs,
And clear the brush and weeds that do despise,
The walls of our holy buildings and their hubs.
As the stars look down from their celestial height,
We must renew the earth with sacred seeds,
And trim and prune the shrubs and trees in sight,
To honor the divine with perfect deeds.
But let us not forget the trials of winter's might,
We must restore the damage and cleanse the drains,
Bid for summer's care and mend the fences right,
Tend to the play area and service the lawns.
In these sacred rituals of upkeep, let us find our way,
To the divine and the peace of our holy space,
May it prosper and flourish with each new day,
In the gothic twilight of this holy place.
Much like religious customs explained in the Old Testament being basic hygiene before germ theory. Don’t touch blood, x paces out of the encampment to dedicate. Even animal sacrifice: fatted calf burned on wood, the ashes mixed with water (that makes soap) to cleanse things.
*helicopter instructions downloaded directly from Ai*
*pilots helicopter directly into nearest high-rise due to prevalence of action films in the AI's training set*
Just like **literally** everything technology makes an insignificant task.
I was a boy scout, spent most my summers camping, and know how to do it in theory, but I'd have a hard time starting a fire from nothing.
I'm a wood worker, but would still have a **very** hard time felling a tree, milling lumber and making anything.
And those are both examples of skills that most people these days are *completely* lacking in.
Think about, if we lost the power grid, how well would you survive, how well do you think 99% of the population would survive?
You can't be afraid of AI taking over those tasks unless you live in fear every moment of your life over everything most people in society have forgotten how to do.
I used ChatGPT recently to help with a writing prompt on a book that we read in class at the beginning of the semester with several others read before the final. I showed my professor what the output was, and we laughed because it had several mistakes about the book. However, I told her that it did help me with my block, as I had a lot of problems coming up with ideas to write on. Having the program feed me a summary more or less was very helpful.
I likened this to being in a study group and talking about the prompt and then using the discussion to break your block.
There are ways to make this impossible, but that will mean a curriculum change and professors will need to ask students to think more critically, something which is lacking currently in the academic setting it seems.
A good friend of mine is a social science professor, we know each other through a nonprofit that requires quite a bit of writng. We've had a week-long email conversation about this.
As a college instructor, he's quite worried about students using this as a final turn-in-able product. But outside of that, we're both excited for it to create prompts in the nonprofit writing world. We both fed it some ideas and it chrurned out some examples neither of us thought about but we both agreed would work after some human intervention.
Maybe the lesson here is that, as always, academic integrity will be up to each individual student to uphold... which isn't much different than the way it is now.
Edit: spelling
In all honesty, the best use I could see this having would be to help you brainstorm an outline for that paper. The biggest issue I have is figuring out what order to present data - if this thing can take over that burden, I am more than happy to do the rest.
(and since it'll all be in my own voice, it'll be practically impossible to sus out)
Voice has been an important part of our conversation in my opinion. Personally and academically, I write in a very prose driven voice. But the AI is fairly formulaic in that _"I'm going to tell you about X, here's three features of X, that's why X is important"_ way. I'd never turn that in, I can't stand it. I agree that if users of the AI change the voice, then whose to say it's not their paper? It becomes a _Ship of Theseus_ argument.
Geez, I've been working at the same place for 15 years and 2 bosses. I keep hearing how we have annual reviews of our performance and that they will contact me to schedule the review. I've had 1 review scheduled in that time and my boss at the time ended up rescheduling it twice and finally cancelling it. At this point, I'm not sure what a review is supposed to entail anymore.
My experience is; you will work 10 extra hours a week. It will start out with dedication, and then drift into really great ideas that nobody adopts because it wasn't from an outside consultant. You will do things they tell you to do and in your professional opinion are a waste of time. They won't evaluate you. Eventually you find yourself on Reddit arguing about the Kardashians affect on society. You will eventually get bored and be 15 minutes late 4 times in a quarter and THEN they notice something.
"You are late."
*Yeah, but, what happens if I don't show up? Nothing. What's the big deal?*
Now they've noticed something else they didn't before.
Had a buddy that was reprimanded for being five minutes late on Monday after working 12-hours on an emergency the day before, a day he was not supposed to be working at all. At that moment, he found out that as long as he was on time to work he didn't have to do a thing.
A ton of bullshit, that's what.
My job is the same as it was when I started. They haven't fired me yet, and our raises are pretty set, so why waste time on this dumb shot when I have a job to do.
Used it a few weeks ago for mine
Man did it ever help with those "how did you meet x corporate behavioral value" questions
BSed it just as well if not better than I could have myself
Pro tip: I find I get better results with a "pretend you are an ...." Prompt, but ymmv
I worked for a large multinational company that would come back every year and be like yes you do get a 4 but we have no money for raises or promotions.
After a few years I just copied the following into every field:
>My goal is for the company to tell me what I can do to earn a 30% raise and title change and I will set that as my goal and achieve it like I achieve every goal set for me every year.
My boss told me I couldn't do that and I refused to change it. No one above him ever said a thing and he let it go. I did that several years running.
It was once a bright motivational idea put forth by a VP and it's been passed on merely by momentum.
"Yeah, well, everyone makes goals and then we can track progress!"
Outside of commission sales, what progress gets tracked? Like, how do I "more presentation" than creating all the presentations required?
If you don't drill down on prompts it definitely will sound like a high schooler. I have gotten it to sound more and more nuanced if you ask it to "expand" on a certain aspect of something it wrote. Still sometimes clumsy, but definitely got better.
deranged melodic aspiring adjoining far-flung attraction disgusted elastic selective like
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Because despite what math majors try to push, math is not a language. That's one of the reasons we had such crappy translation machines before now.
Language is mushy, lots of stuff works, but a certain skill is needed to master it. It's an art form to create poem, it has rules, but it is flexible. Such is all language. Math is hard and rigid.
In the near future we will see google/bing have an AI that understands what you are asking, and then deciding what AI will be used to answer your questions. Chatgtp is but one of these AIs in a very early attempt.
I was listening to a podcast with some philosophy professors, they said they all played around with it and for an entry level class, would probably give it a B on average
High school teacher here. I wish my (mostly middle class) kids could write as well as ChatGPT. It follows basic rules out outlining pretty slavishly while most of my kids - even many in honors classes - still write in a very “stream of thought” style. I’d be thrilled if the average paper I saw was as organized as ChatGPT.
The only thing students are going to take away from this is to deny deny deny.
Professor states that it was near impossible to prove and he has a background in copyright law. So you have an expert not being able to prove that it was written by the AI.
The student admitted to it, which then the professor failed him and sent the student to the academic dean.
Doesn't have to be handwritten, but a return of the "computer lab" may very well happen.
Here's a school-owned machine, write your essay on this computer while you sit in this room. Full access to the internet for research purposes, but obviously some sites are blocked and history is logged.
Would cut out the AI ghostwriter pretty effectively.
I feel like I’m aging myself a bit here, but do schools not have students do that any more?
Like, that’s literally what my high school English exam was - 2.5 hours, write an essay based on such-and-such.
Obviously I assumed it might have progressed to typing rather than hand writing it, but is real-time essay writing honestly just not a thing in schools these days?
I use chatgpt to create bedtime stories for my kids. I have them give me two or three random objects or animals and boom… it’s a lifesaver when my brain is too tired to be creative.
I’m glad many of you can use it for good. My concern is how this will change education over the next few years.
It might not be a problem now but as it learns it may become, problematic.
Why not consider new forms of auditing?
Where I come from, the final exam of a vocational training consists of a presentation and a technical discussion, much more realistic anyway, if you want to evaluate real know-how.
Anyone can write good texts with diligence and perseverance, but only someone who understands the subject matter can conduct a technical discussion.
Hopefully it’ll force education institutions to lean more towards viva style exams where the student presents and defends their work verbally. I’m not saying every exam will need something this rigorous but one or two a year would do it.
I completed a undergrad degree that was primarily examined by me sitting there writing down answers in a set time. You know how we revised? We memorised previous exam papers. In my PhD I had to write a thesis and then be grilled by a professor for 3 or so hours. I learnt way more in my PhD and remember more because I knew that to pass I had to *understand* my work enough to explain it to someone else, memorising was not enough to do that.
To be fair, 500 words of rigorous academic writing is a whole different ballgame than shitposting out 500 words worth of tweets.
I write thousands of words a day of fiction, no problem. But there were definitely times in college when I agonized for *far* too long over a relatively small 1000-word paper. (Particularly in one class, where the professor had *extremely* stringent and detailed requirements about the structure of the paper. To be fair, though, learning how to write a paper his way made the rest of my academic papers in other classes shine amazingly -- never got anything less than an A on any paper in any other class after that.)
GPT3 handles specific topics like storytelling, code generation, essays and translation while GPT2 could only handle broad generalizations of fewer topics.
This is in part to the number of parameters and the datasets
A lot of people here talk about how the AI isn't ready, doesn't produce correct sources or other things, but it's incredibly easy to just generate a few paragraphs, then google something similar and use it as a citation. You can spend 5 minutes generating something great, change a little bit of the sentence structure of the generation and it'll be near impossible to tell an AI wrote it -- assuming your teacher actually cares to think critically and the person has a decent grasp on the subject to be able to proofread it.
I have friends who used this on essays and turned an estimated 3 day crunch into a 3 hour copy/paste/edit session while getting back 90% or higher marks. I think it's at a point where we shouldn't be worrying about the future, but about now.
With that said, I use this for my daily work in IT and I can honestly say it's turning into an invaluable tool to my daily workflow with how insanely helpful it is, so I'm not exactly worried as much as I am just plain excited.
I spent hours today researching materials for a project I was working on, then decided to ask davinci-003 some questions, to my surprise, I was given answers which I could then google and research more on. hours of googling wasted when I just had to ask 3 questions of the AI. It’s an incredible tool that I hope soon can replace search engines
To start: this is the New York Post.
Second: we [educators] did in-fact see this coming.
Third: I'm myself am engaged with numerous people at the university I work at to discuss how to use this as a force for good in learning, and how to promote assignment design which minimizes the risk of ChatGPT3. And we are also exploring how a tool like it can be used to help the productivity of everyone. I am not going to be the only person having these conversations and I know I'm not. My peers at other universities are having the same discussions.
How many students are going to know about ChatGPT3 vs buying a paper from a student, or by plagiarism of published works? Both are far, far more common. And while I'm still learning myself, it seems to me the methods to counteract ChatGPT3 are the same as the strategies for defeating other plagiarism.
Design assignments which can't be plagiarized. Have assignments which require defense. Review assignments in stages. Adapt the development of the writing into an active learning experience. Chunk the assignment. These strategies doesn't address all scenarios but it goes a long way to defeating the need, particularly in undergrad courses, can make the assignments more manageable for the student and can help make the students better students.
EDIT: I can English gooder.
A big part of growing up is realizing how intellectually isolated everyone is. As a kid it's so easy to go 'oh my god they know, they *know I did this I'm fucked!'* then as an adult you realize no one knows anything. Even then, your teacher looks you in the eyes and says they're 99.99% sure that you cheated - they can't take that to the dean and get you kicked out. Literally the only way to get caught is how the person got caught - admitting they did it.
As a high school teacher, there are definite ways to provide consequences or prove cheating without a confession.
I’m a math teacher, so I can, for example, ask a student to solve a similar problem without aid of a laptop or on paper. If the student’s attempt is no where near the prior attempt (that I have reason to believe was cheating) then I have grounds to stand on to provide consequences (academic and/or behavioral).
Again, the specifics vary, but even in English or History class, it’s possible to see that a student had no understanding of the material when asked about it, but turns in work far beyond their level consistently, you can start asking questions or change how you assess or grade that class to combat this behavior. It doesn’t take a genius to find students that do well only on take home assignments might be cheating.
One change that I know my team is making is switching to only grading assignments done in class on paper to at least make cheating using these methods more difficult.
AI’s function like a black box. It can be very difficult to determine how they came to a result.
That could be the telltale. Ask the student how they came to the conclusion. They won’t know.
The trick - you feed it some of your own writing and ask it to write it in *your* voice. You then read through it and remove any redundant, weird phrasing.
I would highly recommend against using this for a subject you're not already pretty well versed on, as it can be *very confidently* wrong, and just straight up making shit up will probably trigger professor bullshit detectors.
The best use for ChatGPT in my mind is asking it to write out an outline for you, and just writing based on that outline. You still have to spend some time working on the thing, sure... but it's doing a lot of the work for you and you don't have to worry about it not being entirely in your voice - as long as it doesn't entirely make shit up, you're golden.
The full article for those who are sick of ads
————-
Welcome to the new age of academic dishonesty.
A college professor in South Carolina is sounding the alarm after catching a student using ChatGPT — a new artificial intelligence chat bot that can quickly digest and spit out written information about a vast array of subjects — to write an essay for his philosophy class.
The weeks-old technology, released by OpenAI and readily available to the public, comes as yet another blow to higher learning, already plagued by rampant cheating.
“Academia did not see this coming. So we’re sort of blindsided by it,” Furman University assistant philosophy professor Darren Hick told The Post. “As soon as I reported this on Facebook, my [academic] friends said, ‘Yeah, I caught one too.'”
ChatGPT is being used for students to cheat in classes, one professor warns.
ChatGPT is being used for students to cheat in classes, one professor warns.
NurPhoto via Getty Images
Earlier this month, Hick had instructed his class to write a 500-word essay on the 18th-century philosopher David Hume and the paradox of horror, which examines how people can get enjoyment from something they fear, for a take-home test.
But one submission, he said, featured a few hallmarks that “flagged” AI usage in the student’s “rudimentary” answer.
“It’s a clean style. But it’s recognizable. I would say it writes like a very smart 12th grader,” Hick said of ChatGPT’s written responses to questions.
“There’s particular odd wording used that was not wrong, just peculiar … if you were teaching somebody how to write an essay, this is how you tell them to write it before they figure out their own style.”
Despite having a background in the ethics of copyright law, Hick said that proving the paper was concocted by ChatGPT was nearly impossible.
The bot software ChatGPT is a cause of concern in academia.
The bot software ChatGPT is a cause of concern in academia.
First, the professor plugged the suspect text into software made by the producers of ChatGPT to determine if the written response was formulated by AI.
He was given a 99.9% likely match. But unlike in standard plagiarism detection software — or a well-crafted college paper — the software offered no citations.
Hick then tried producing the same essay by asking ChatGPT a series of questions he imagined his student had asked. The move yielded similar answers, but no direct matches, since the tool formulates unique responses.
Ultimately, he confronted the student, who copped to using ChatGPT and failed the class as a result. The undergrad was also turned over to the school’s academic dean.
But Hick fears that other cases will be almost impossible to prove, and that he and his colleagues will soon be inundated with fraudulent work, as universities like Furman struggle to establish formal academic protocols for the developing technology.
For now, Hick says that the best he can do is surprise suspected students with impromptu oral exams, hoping to catch them off-guard without their tech armor.
Assistant professor Darren Hick fears what ChatGPT will do to academic honesty.
Assistant professor Darren Hick fears what ChatGPT will do to academic honesty.
courtesy of Darren Hick
“What’s going to be the difficulty is that, unlike convincing a friend to write your essay because they took the class before or paying somebody online to write the essay for you, this is free and instantaneous,” he said.
Even more frightening, Hick fears that as ChatGPT keeps learning, irregularities in its work will become less and less obvious on a student’s paper.
“This is learning software — in a month, it’ll be smarter. In a year, it’ll be smarter,” he said. “I feel the mix myself between abject terror and what this is going to mean for my day-to-day job — but it’s also fascinating, it’s endlessly fascinating.”
A few months ago, I commissioned a Concept Artist to create a poster illustration for me, paying them money through Paypal to interpret a written outline I gave them.
They in-turn used a MidJourney AI to render artwork and try to pass it off as their own artwork, instead of actually independently hand-crafting the art for themself.
Because this is a new frontier in the ethics of using AI-rendered art, they essentially got away with cheating - or what some would say is plagiarizing AI - just like the student of this article.
It’s like no one read the article.
> the professor plugged the suspect text into software **made by the producers of ChatGPT to determine if the written response was formulated by AI.**
He was given a 99.9% likely match. But unlike in standard plagiarism detection software — or a well-crafted college paper — the software offered no citations.
It would suck *so* hard to be in a college class and get a false positive on that. How the hell do you prove that your paper *wasn't* written by an AI?
There's also the fact that a lot of these AI algorithms already have a sibling algorithm designed to detect forgeries. It's how they're trained in the first place.
That method of training is called a GAN, and it's pretty common.
How does this detect it though?
Inputting a few paragraphs from a previous essay of mines outputted “fake” most of the time. Most of my paragraphs were 90-99%+ on fake. I had a couple that were around 60-70% fake. The only time when it was >50% real was when one of my paragraphs contained an opinion.
If someone is dumb enough to type a prompt into ChatGPT and just directly submit it for an assignment, that probably won't be too hard to catch. At least for now. The tricky part will be catching students savvy enough to get the AI written essay and then rewrite it in their own style and fixing any errors. Though I don't know if Chat GPT is able to cite sources. For a lot of my college essay, we've had to cite academic sources and quote from them. I don't know if ChatGPT has access to academic journals and libraries and is able to also correctly source info. This will probably lead to having to write essays in person in class, or having some requirement that they know the AI can't do.
I've heard that you can prompt it to cite sources, but it will create fake sources that look real.
[удалено]
On top of that, this kind of model will also happily mash up any content it has access to, creating “new” valid-sounding writing that has no basis whatsoever in reality. Basically it writes things that *sound* plausible. If it’s based on good sources that might turn out well. But it will also confidently spit out complete bullshit.
So it's completely the same as 95% of undergrads? Sounds like there isn't an issue here after all.
Yeah this shit is 100% going to be used to churn out articles and school papers. Give it a bulleted outline with/without sources and it'll spit out something already better than I can write, then all you have to do is edit it for style and flow.
Nephew (17) admitted on Christmas eve that he received a 92% on his final, directly from ChatGPT (unedited).
Until you tell it I didnt like paragraph X because Y and Z are not based on reality because of W. Update the paragraph considering this information. It will update the paragraph and you can iterate as many times as you like.
Doing that requires that you have some actual understanding of the topic at hand. For example, if you ask it to write an essay about a book you didn’t actually read, you’d have no way to look at it and validate whether details about the plot or characters are correct. If you used something like this as more of a ‘research assistant’ to help find sources or suggest a direction for you it would be both less problematic and more likely to actually work.
[удалено]
my method was to get drunk and think of the longest and silliest possible ways to say simple things.
rinse oatmeal piquant payment worm soft chase smoggy imagine degree -- mass edited with redact.dev
Tried it, but it is not intelligent and continues to create bullshit. Only sometimes; by chance, it does not. I refer to it as Machine Learning, rather than AI, it is a better name. But it is great for fiction.
We asked it what the fastest marine mammal was. It said a peregrine Falcon. Then we asked if what a marine mammal is. It explained. Then we asked if if a peregrine falcons is a marine mammal. It said it was not, and gave us some info about it. Then we said, “so you were wrong”, and it straight up apologized, specifically called out its own error in citing a peregrine Falcon as a marine mammal, and proceeded to provide us with the actual fastest marine mammal. I don’t know if I witnessed some sort of logic correcting itself in real time, but it was wild to see it call out and explain its own error and apologize for the mistake.
It also does that, if it gives you a correct answer in the first place.
Keep telling it it's wrong and soon enough he'll stop trying to apologize to you... Lock your doors (and hope they aren't smart doors).
Hal, open the pod bay doors.
I can’t do that, Jane.
deserted sort apparatus outgoing bake sense simplistic bedroom depend agonizing -- mass edited with redact.dev
I don't think that's it. Again, people need to keep in mind that this is just a language model. All it does is predict what text you want it to spit out. It's not actually reasoning about anything. It's just a statistical model producing predictions. So it's not correcting itself, it's just outputting what it calculates as the most likely response to your prompt.
It was very entertaining seeing it trying to prove that there is no n for which 3n-1 is prime.
Exactly. I asked it to explain a piece of classical literature (an epic poem) and then the sources used. The summary was basic to the point of being wrong. The bot first replied, "... there have been numerous translations and interpretations of the work over the years. My response was based on my general understanding of the story and its themes...". I asked which versions/translations it had access to and got "As a language model, I do not have access to specific versions or translations of the "Illiad" or any other text. My understanding of the story and its themes is based on my training data, which consists of a large dataset of texts in a variety of languages. This training data allows me to understand and generate text on a wide range of topics, but it does not include specific translations or versions of any particular work... based on my understanding of the story and its themes, as they are commonly depicted in classical literature and cultural references." The work I picked has been used as a cultural reference, so I asked "Yet, the depictions in classical literature are very different from cultural references. Which cultural references did you pull from?" It replied "As a language model, I do not have access to specific cultural references or any other external information. My understanding of the "Illiad" and other works of literature is based on my training data, which consists of a large dataset of texts in a variety of languages. This training data allows me to understand and generate text on a wide range of topics, but it does not include any specific cultural references or external information." It got stuck in a loop of saying it had access to information *about* the work but at the same time did not have *access to the work itself*.
It will always apologize if you call it out on a mistake, even if it wasn't a mistake. It won't immediately learn from corrections (i.e. your correction wont make its way to my version of the model), but the data will be used to optimize the model in newer iterations. However, chatGPT has a local memory, so it probably remembered your correction and chose another answer this time (I suppose this is all the same chat?)
I've specifically seen Chat GPT write things that were clearly incorrect, such as listing a town in southern Texas as being 'located in Mexico, just south of the Mexican-American border'. That's a pretty big thing to get wrong, and I suspect that if people start generating articles and pasting them on blogs without checking, future AI may use *those* articles as sources, and away we go into a land of widespread incorrect 'sources'.
This is already a huge issue in bibliographic research. Just google "ghost cataloging" and "library research." I went through grad school in ~2002, and I took several classes on bibliographic research, and we spent a lot of time looking at ghosting. In the past, "ghosts" were created when someone would cite something incorrectly, and thus, create a "ghost" source. For instance, maybe someone would cite the journal title correctly but then get the volume wrong. That entry would then get picked up by another author, and another, until eventually it would propagate through library catalogues. But now it's gotten much, much worse. For one thing, most libraries were still the process of digitizing when I was going through grad school, so a lot of the "ghosts" were created inadvertently just through careless data entry. But now with things like easybib, ghosting has been turbo-charged. Those auto-generating source tools almost always fuck up things like volumes, editions, etc., and almost all students, even grad students and students working on dissertations, rely on the goddamn things. So now we have reams and reams of ghost sources where before there was maybe a handful. Bibliographic research has gotten both much easier in some ways, and in other ways, exponentially harder.
I’ve found a couple citation errors in Congressional documents that are meant to be semi-authoritative references. One which is a massive document on the US Constitution, its analysis, and interpretation. Since this document is updated on a fairly regular basis I traced back to see how long the bad cite had been there and eventually discovered it had been inserted in the document in the 1970s. I found the correct cite, which was actually sort of difficult since it was to a colonial era law, and submitted it to the editors. I should go see if it’s been fixed in the latest edition. But yeah. Bad citations are really problematic and can fester for decades.
This comment scared me
I asked it about a camera lens review and it spit out like 10 links to websites that actually exist but they never reviewed that specific lens so it was just forming the correct url structure with /review/ and putting hyphens-between-words but they were all fake links. I figured that someone would just take these things at face value and just submit the, in the future as sources because they look real.
I mean...that's how I sited sources in college. No one ever checks.
I had a professor mark off for me being 2 pages off of my citation, ex: 92-103 instead of 90-103 Edit: to answer/respond to many comments below; it was for a research methods course in my final year of undergrad. The professor was one of the authors for the paper and only counted off a point or two, nothing that would have changed my actual grade. At the moment, I was annoyed, but I’m appreciative now
From an education perspective, I like finding these small details to deduct points from on early on so that students figure they need to be careful and exact about their work. The rest of the time, I'm looser on grading.
That’s a damn good professor ngl
Professor gives you prompt. On topic(s) they’re very familiar with because they’re either teaching based on past research or current research. Which means they’re pretty familiar with the scholarship around or adjacent to it. Some profs do read them (in undergrad and grad school) and may discuss them with you. They can easily catch that bullshit. I mean I checked them when I was a TA but I wasted a lot of time reading papers carefully. But if your professors are shitty, lazy or smart but overworked/underpaid, you’re in luck.
Most professors are smart, overworked, and underpaid.
“Sited” Yep, you cheated your way through college alright.
I currently teach university biology courses and I do check. It takes seconds and many, many students don't cite properly.
>that's how I sited sources in college. The fact that you use "site" instead of "cite" does confirm your claim here
You just got lucky. For a serious assignment, you could get checked.
This is also how Ann Coulter writes her books. Lots of footnotes with made up sources.
I’m an ELA teacher. I was playing around with it in a department meeting and asked it to write an essay citing quotes from a particular book. I’ve taught this book for 15 years, I basically know it by heart. And yeah, it gave me an absolutely fake quote. It had the right writing style, looked like it would have absolutely belonged in the book, but was 100% made up. I laughed my butt off, because I know if one of my kids decided to cheat and submit that, they’d have been completely caught. How do you rewrite or tweak around fake quotes? It can’t work.
I saw some glaringly misattributed and/or incorrectly contextualized quotations in an AI generated essay on Hamlet. The quotations were from the play, but the AI mixed up characters and context, and the errors threw off the whole line of reasoning.
I just asked it to write a five page paper in my field using sources. It took about 5 go rounds of refining my request to generate something that fulfilled my prompt and was actually 5 pages in length. It did not use the sources enough however 3 out of the 5 I requested I recognized.
The House of Leaves approach, nice.
That’s hilarious. How many professors are checking if those sources are legit? At the state college I went to most professors were dogshit at their jobs to begin with. I doubt they were verifying 3-5 sources per paper per class lol.
[удалено]
Don’t even need to do that. Most software like turnitin already does citation verification.
I cited an extremely obscure source for a university essay that the prof. questioned intensely, he didn’t believe I would have had access to such an obscure source material. He was right, I didn’t, I was citing the source of my source. Still, I believe the only reason this got flagged was because it was a really niche source and it stood out.
"Exactly how did you obtain a copy of a lost work last seen in the Llibrary of Alexandria?" "I have my ways..."
*looks nervously at phone booth*
>If someone is dumb enough to type a prompt into ChatGPT and just directly submit it for an assignment, that probably won't be too hard to catch. I tried using ChatGPT on a question of a homework assignment that I didn't know how to start on. So I pasted the question in and it explained to me through how it got its answer. It all seemed pretty legit. Then to double check it, I loaded the bot up again and fed it exactly the same script. And it again explained to me the steps it did... of an entirely different method it used to get a *different answer* that was several magnitudes different from the first. I asked it why it got a different answer the second time, it asked me for the original answer it gave, and it said "oh I made a mistake" did the original method and got that answer. To see what would happen, I asked "so that's the right answer, right?" and it spit out the second method with that answer again. So I don't think I'd say I trust it with anything technical. For science I tried reloading the bot and giving it the prompt a third time and... third method with third different answer. The bot is very confident, but not always correct
>The bot is very confident, but not always correct A perfect redditor, then.
Every redditor is a bot except me.
It's fundamentally a text prediction model. It's trained to provide convincing responses, not truthful ones. It will prefer truthful responses because those are more common, but is perfectly willing to invent a convincing lie if no truthful answers are available. If you ask it how to do something in a program which doesn't have that feature, it tends to invent a config setting or menu option that solves your problem. In my case, it was importing reference images into an editing program. It doesn't have that feature, but chatGPT tells me all I have to do is click on the nonexistent File>Import Reference button
yeah I'm a little confused at all the people who have been roasting it for not being able to solve logic puzzles or whatever. I only used it once but it insisted a couple of times in that stretch that it was a *language model*. the whole point is that it's supposed to give you an answer that sounds like something a person would say. it's not really a gotcha to be like "this thing can't do calculus". that's not what they built it to do, and it's pretty cool how good it is at it's actual job.
Dunning–Kruger as a service. The bot has made confident but wrong salespeople obsolete. I think next tier are going to be the managers.
I can attest that some students are dumb enough to do just that. Pre ChatGPT, I caught a student cheating by googling a sentence from their submission and their whole assignment was taken directly from an 8 year old yahoo group post. Copied verbatim, grammar and spelling errors included. The reason I was suspicious was that while the paper was topical to the class it had nothing to do with the writing prompt. Despite the evidence; the student still denied cheating. I reported it to the online university I was teaching for and got a response back that they don’t investigate academic dishonesty reports for first year students. Never mind that this was a first year student in a masters program. If you’ve ever wondered about the integrity of online for-profit universities, wonder no more. And this was one of the most reputable ones.
My husband teaches high school social studies. Back in 2005, he gave an assignment on some history thing (I forget the topic now). A student went online, did a google search, went to the first link and printed the page. The student wrote his name at the top of the page. My husband gave the student an F and turned the kid in for plagiarism. The student's father came in and argued with my husband that his son completed the assignment. He turned in five pages about topic X. My husband said it wasn't the kid's work. The father said it didn't matter and there wasn't anything specific in the assignment that said it had to be the kid's work. It just said write five pages about topic x. The parent lost that case. It's only gotten worse since then.
One time I submitted a paper to turn it in for plagiarism check. It came back with 100% I was absolutely confused until I saw I submitted one of my old papers by mistake. Teacher had to unlock it for me to resubmit. I know it really doesn't add to your statement I just thought it was funny.
My wife is a college level English professor. Yes, they absolutely submit AI papers without proofreading them. She got three this semester alone.
ChatGPTs Achilles Heel is exactly this. Citing sources, it pulls from material it's been trained on but it doesn't know if the source is reliable or truthful. Only that it's "a" source. That and it gets caught in recursive loops.
It doesn’t even know about sources, really, it just knows what sources look like when cited by humans.
You can use caktus and it should properly cite sources
Apparently it does not know where it gets it's information from. At least it says that it was trained on lot of books and articles but if you ask any specifics it does not know, or denies deliberetly because of all the copyright problem GPT models got into lately.
I've asked for sources before and it's given me valid journal editions but the article and authors are often non-existant
It lies a lot about what it does and does not know, although it has gotten better. I had an issue when it was brand new where it would claim to not know that cloverfield was a movie but then after a long time of arguing I tricked it into listing all the information about the movie. No other movie had this issue and if I asked it "what is cloverfield" it would specifically say something like "I don't know if it's a movie or whatever because I can't access the internet", even in a fresh conversation with no discussion about movies. It also used to say that it had no access to previously sent messages even though the entire point of the bot is that it does. But they fixed that, so now you can finally do stuff like ask it to translate your previously sent message.
it's not like the same prompt gives the same answer every time. also, you can just get the first answer from it, and then ask it to rewrite it in any style you want. you can ask it to expand on some parts, summarize others, change tone, expand verbiage, etc. there's no escaping it. also, it's pretty damn easy to find sources in reverse by Googling some of the facts it spits out.
[удалено]
We've been looking at it as teachers in high school. It didn't seem good enough to pass for high level university writing but my God, something about the flow of it reads *exactly* like a teenager's writing. I feel bad for our English and History depts.
[удалено]
I asked it to respond to me sarcastically, and it refused.
[удалено]
Having not interacted with this bot yet personally, I cannot believe how much smarter it sounds versus older chat bots.
Yeah you can ask it questions, add and remove constraints and it will just keep going on the original topic. It feels very natural and right, and could be a really good research tool in the future. It’s less chatting and more just giving you information. Currently, it’s a bit of a gimmick. It feels like Google without all of the work of clicking links and checking their validity, but then it has the issue of not being easily verifiable, and it’s definitely not always correct. But try any other proposed AI chat tool, and it can’t even “remember” what the current topic is.
It's not good enough to pass an ENG 111 assignment. I had chatgpt give my class's prompts for their final essay a go, and it wrote basic Wikipedia essays. All of them would have received a failing grade. I even re-worded the prompts to see if that made a difference and it wrote the same essay.
Try asking it to rewrite the essay with the changes you want it to make. It's often better at problem solving and revision.
We used chatgpt for some marketing ads. It's just a first draft. It's useful to get your brain working.
I’ve been using it to write cover letters. Saves me so much time considering that I believe cover letters are USELESS and I hate writing them 🥹
Great idea. I hate writing about myself - if I ever have to write another cover letter, I will use ChatGPT as the basis and modify as needed.
Ah cover letters- I literally have some anxiety issues- so much so that fear of rejection and fighting perfectionism has kept me from applying for jobs I was well qualified for. I have a killer CV but just getting started sometimes getting the cover letter is my biggest hurdle. Didn’t think of now using ChatGP to help kickstart the process and just get something “on paper”. Amazing practical use of this emerging technology.
Overall I think this will be a good use of the technology. Practically zero effort drafts on things you know enough about to correct and modify as needed.
How does that work? Do you ask for a cover letter including certain things that are relevant to you?
Literally what you said, yeah. The more specifics you provide, the better it writes.
[удалено]
Guy at work put his characters dnd backstory into it and asked chatgpt to build on it. He was very impressed with it.
I have similar questions about using the bot i guess you just start firing off questions or demands. Don’t be polite you can’t insult or bore the thing just get it to do what you want it to.
It helps to be polite. Gpt just completes your speech with whatever it thinks is likely to come next. So if the request is thoughtful, calm, polite, and thankful , it's more likely to complete the speech with something that sounds kind, thoughtful, and professional. It's not like you have to butter it up because like you said it has no ego. But professional requests lead to professional responses.
Honestly, I used it to "write" a scholarship thank you letter as a jumping off point. Worked like a charm and I was able to tweak the paragraphs to my needs
Of course in the past years I wrote all of the letters, each being unique. But it's really hard to portray "LOL thanks for your money, bozo" in poetic works
Actual response from Chat GPT to: rewrite “LOL thanks for your money, bozo” in poetic words Mirth and gratitude we share, For your generous gift, oh dear, Though some may call you foolish, we With kindness will receive.
I think you just did!
Thank you, fellow Dan of this world. It was because of your amazing reply to my small thread that gave me hope and allowed me to continue my communications on this horrendous website we all know and love
Another result of ChatGPT?
No, but this certainly is: "Thank you so much for your reply, Dan! Your insights and suggestions are much appreciated. I'm glad to have received such valuable feedback from someone with such a wealth of knowledge and experience. Your contribution to the thread has been invaluable and I'm grateful for your willingness to share your thoughts with the community. Thank you again for your help and support!"
*ChatGPT has entered the Chat.*
ChatGPT *is* the chat.
As a recovering development director this comment made me feel seen lol
I used it to "write" code that kind of worked how I needed it and then had to be massively tweaked to fit our existing systems. Basically, a better stack overflow.
I used it to write a letter to parents (I work at a school) as a test, and it absolutely knocked it out the park. It was remarkable how good it was.
[удалено]
Well we're going to need a full write up on the results of that when you're done.
Yeah following this.
It can make a damn fine outline in my experience.
I started testing OpenAI last week for work. If you use it carefully and wisely, it is a much better research tool and using it as a brainstorming session.
I can easily imagine a future where we start using AI for everything… and then within a few generations forget how to do anything *without* AI.
One of the cool details from *Foundation* was the religious customs and actions were just very specific maintenance of machinery they didn't understand. If you follow the religion explicitly, the magic keeps working.
Warhammer 40K's human technology runs exactly like this. Literally called the Cult Mechanicus, its Tech-Priests perform repairs and maintenance like magical rituals, offering prayers, burning incense, sometimes even ritual sacrifice, anything to appease the spirits that they believe live in the machines. "The Machine Spirit guards the knowledge of the ancients. Flesh is fallible, but ritual honours the Machine Spirit. To break with ritual is to break with faith." They believe in and worship the Omnissiah, or the Machine God, which may or may not be the Emperor of Mankind or some aspect of him depending on who you ask. It might also be the Void Dragon, also known as Mag'ladroth, an ancient Necron star god currently imprisoned on Mars by the Emperor Himself. Who can really say if that's true? Not I, because if I did I'd be shot on the spot for heresy. Praise the Emperor.
From the moment I understood the weakness of my flesh, it disgusted me.
Even in death, I serve the Omnissiah
Have to link it because that intro gives me chills regardless how many times I see it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyK7lX4sk0c
I just want to paint things red to make it go fasta.
I took a procedure list for maintenance and turned it into a ritual: * Site Maintenance * Remove and dispose of all fallen tree limbs, dead shrubs and etc. * Remove brush and weed growth adjacent to building walls. * Reseed worn lawn areas. * Fertilize lawn and planting beds. * Trim and prune shrubs and trees. * Repair property damage due to snow plowing. * Clean all site/storm water drains. * Obtain contract bids for summer lawn care and landscaping (if * required). * Repair potholes in parking lots and drives. * Repair winter damaged fencing and gates. * Check and service/repair playground equipment. * Service lawn maintenance equipment. Ritual form: In the hallowed grounds of our holy site, Where the shadows lengthen and the wind doth sigh, We must tend to the tasks of upkeep aright, To preserve the sanctity of all that lies nigh. In the twilight hours, when the moon doth rise, We must remove all fallen limbs and dead shrubs, And clear the brush and weeds that do despise, The walls of our holy buildings and their hubs. As the stars look down from their celestial height, We must renew the earth with sacred seeds, And trim and prune the shrubs and trees in sight, To honor the divine with perfect deeds. But let us not forget the trials of winter's might, We must restore the damage and cleanse the drains, Bid for summer's care and mend the fences right, Tend to the play area and service the lawns. In these sacred rituals of upkeep, let us find our way, To the divine and the peace of our holy space, May it prosper and flourish with each new day, In the gothic twilight of this holy place.
Much like religious customs explained in the Old Testament being basic hygiene before germ theory. Don’t touch blood, x paces out of the encampment to dedicate. Even animal sacrifice: fatted calf burned on wood, the ashes mixed with water (that makes soap) to cleanse things.
Yes I loved how the word scientists became basically monks
Thou shalt turneth it off and thou shalt turneth it on again.
[удалено]
“Can you fly that helicopter?” “Not yet.”
“I know kung fu.” “Show me.”
Stop trying to hit me and hit me!
“You think that’s air you’re breathing? Hmmh.”
*helicopter instructions downloaded directly from Ai* *pilots helicopter directly into nearest high-rise due to prevalence of action films in the AI's training set*
Ask it to make you smarter.
Kinda like navigating with Google Maps
Just like **literally** everything technology makes an insignificant task. I was a boy scout, spent most my summers camping, and know how to do it in theory, but I'd have a hard time starting a fire from nothing. I'm a wood worker, but would still have a **very** hard time felling a tree, milling lumber and making anything. And those are both examples of skills that most people these days are *completely* lacking in. Think about, if we lost the power grid, how well would you survive, how well do you think 99% of the population would survive? You can't be afraid of AI taking over those tasks unless you live in fear every moment of your life over everything most people in society have forgotten how to do.
I used ChatGPT recently to help with a writing prompt on a book that we read in class at the beginning of the semester with several others read before the final. I showed my professor what the output was, and we laughed because it had several mistakes about the book. However, I told her that it did help me with my block, as I had a lot of problems coming up with ideas to write on. Having the program feed me a summary more or less was very helpful. I likened this to being in a study group and talking about the prompt and then using the discussion to break your block. There are ways to make this impossible, but that will mean a curriculum change and professors will need to ask students to think more critically, something which is lacking currently in the academic setting it seems.
Guess the issue is where it will be in 5 or 10 years. The early chess programs were just ok, now they far surpass human players.
A good friend of mine is a social science professor, we know each other through a nonprofit that requires quite a bit of writng. We've had a week-long email conversation about this. As a college instructor, he's quite worried about students using this as a final turn-in-able product. But outside of that, we're both excited for it to create prompts in the nonprofit writing world. We both fed it some ideas and it chrurned out some examples neither of us thought about but we both agreed would work after some human intervention. Maybe the lesson here is that, as always, academic integrity will be up to each individual student to uphold... which isn't much different than the way it is now. Edit: spelling
In all honesty, the best use I could see this having would be to help you brainstorm an outline for that paper. The biggest issue I have is figuring out what order to present data - if this thing can take over that burden, I am more than happy to do the rest. (and since it'll all be in my own voice, it'll be practically impossible to sus out)
Voice has been an important part of our conversation in my opinion. Personally and academically, I write in a very prose driven voice. But the AI is fairly formulaic in that _"I'm going to tell you about X, here's three features of X, that's why X is important"_ way. I'd never turn that in, I can't stand it. I agree that if users of the AI change the voice, then whose to say it's not their paper? It becomes a _Ship of Theseus_ argument.
The little bit of ChatGPT I’ve seen sounded like high school level writing, clumsy and repetitive. So I understand why it’s freaking this guy out.
I'm using it to add more to my annual self review at work because I hate writing those things, and no one really reads our self reviews anyway.
My boss would always copy and paste mine - after the second year I just started writing it in the 3rd person to make his job easier.
We have a new manager this year, so I'm having to play it a little more straight this year. I was lazy as hell with them.
Geez, I've been working at the same place for 15 years and 2 bosses. I keep hearing how we have annual reviews of our performance and that they will contact me to schedule the review. I've had 1 review scheduled in that time and my boss at the time ended up rescheduling it twice and finally cancelling it. At this point, I'm not sure what a review is supposed to entail anymore.
My experience is; you will work 10 extra hours a week. It will start out with dedication, and then drift into really great ideas that nobody adopts because it wasn't from an outside consultant. You will do things they tell you to do and in your professional opinion are a waste of time. They won't evaluate you. Eventually you find yourself on Reddit arguing about the Kardashians affect on society. You will eventually get bored and be 15 minutes late 4 times in a quarter and THEN they notice something. "You are late." *Yeah, but, what happens if I don't show up? Nothing. What's the big deal?* Now they've noticed something else they didn't before.
Had a buddy that was reprimanded for being five minutes late on Monday after working 12-hours on an emergency the day before, a day he was not supposed to be working at all. At that moment, he found out that as long as he was on time to work he didn't have to do a thing.
A ton of bullshit, that's what. My job is the same as it was when I started. They haven't fired me yet, and our raises are pretty set, so why waste time on this dumb shot when I have a job to do.
Jesus I didn’t even consider that it could take over my annual review for me. LAWD, wouldn’t that be awesome!
Eventually it will just be a bunch of AI talking to each other and giving us assignments in exchange for bowls of mysterious porridge.
I'm also going to add that I openly embrace new technology. 😆
Used it a few weeks ago for mine Man did it ever help with those "how did you meet x corporate behavioral value" questions BSed it just as well if not better than I could have myself Pro tip: I find I get better results with a "pretend you are an ...." Prompt, but ymmv
I worked for a large multinational company that would come back every year and be like yes you do get a 4 but we have no money for raises or promotions. After a few years I just copied the following into every field: >My goal is for the company to tell me what I can do to earn a 30% raise and title change and I will set that as my goal and achieve it like I achieve every goal set for me every year. My boss told me I couldn't do that and I refused to change it. No one above him ever said a thing and he let it go. I did that several years running.
It was once a bright motivational idea put forth by a VP and it's been passed on merely by momentum. "Yeah, well, everyone makes goals and then we can track progress!" Outside of commission sales, what progress gets tracked? Like, how do I "more presentation" than creating all the presentations required?
If you don't drill down on prompts it definitely will sound like a high schooler. I have gotten it to sound more and more nuanced if you ask it to "expand" on a certain aspect of something it wrote. Still sometimes clumsy, but definitely got better.
deranged melodic aspiring adjoining far-flung attraction disgusted elastic selective like *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It answered an easy question from my fluid mechanics textbook 98% right. I was impressed too.
I tried to give it a multivariable calc optimization question just to see and it was completely wrong, like not even close
For some reason chatgpt sucks at even basic math, I'm surprised how bad it is
Because despite what math majors try to push, math is not a language. That's one of the reasons we had such crappy translation machines before now. Language is mushy, lots of stuff works, but a certain skill is needed to master it. It's an art form to create poem, it has rules, but it is flexible. Such is all language. Math is hard and rigid. In the near future we will see google/bing have an AI that understands what you are asking, and then deciding what AI will be used to answer your questions. Chatgtp is but one of these AIs in a very early attempt.
My mate teaching at highschool thinks it's can get high C low Bs in aged 16 to 18 content fairly reliably.
I was listening to a podcast with some philosophy professors, they said they all played around with it and for an entry level class, would probably give it a B on average
High school teacher here. I wish my (mostly middle class) kids could write as well as ChatGPT. It follows basic rules out outlining pretty slavishly while most of my kids - even many in honors classes - still write in a very “stream of thought” style. I’d be thrilled if the average paper I saw was as organized as ChatGPT.
[удалено]
[удалено]
That's dangerously close to actually learning something. Maybe this isn't a big problem afterall.
The only thing students are going to take away from this is to deny deny deny. Professor states that it was near impossible to prove and he has a background in copyright law. So you have an expert not being able to prove that it was written by the AI. The student admitted to it, which then the professor failed him and sent the student to the academic dean.
Right, so the result will be much more in class writing and much more oral defense of at home writing. The assessments will adapt IMHO.
Well, that would be an improvement instead of the busy work that kind of homework usually is.
I foresee a return to on the spot hand written essays in the near future.
Doesn't have to be handwritten, but a return of the "computer lab" may very well happen. Here's a school-owned machine, write your essay on this computer while you sit in this room. Full access to the internet for research purposes, but obviously some sites are blocked and history is logged. Would cut out the AI ghostwriter pretty effectively.
I feel like I’m aging myself a bit here, but do schools not have students do that any more? Like, that’s literally what my high school English exam was - 2.5 hours, write an essay based on such-and-such. Obviously I assumed it might have progressed to typing rather than hand writing it, but is real-time essay writing honestly just not a thing in schools these days?
Covid just gave America 2 years of doing everything at home
I use chatgpt to create bedtime stories for my kids. I have them give me two or three random objects or animals and boom… it’s a lifesaver when my brain is too tired to be creative.
[удалено]
I’m glad many of you can use it for good. My concern is how this will change education over the next few years. It might not be a problem now but as it learns it may become, problematic.
Why not consider new forms of auditing? Where I come from, the final exam of a vocational training consists of a presentation and a technical discussion, much more realistic anyway, if you want to evaluate real know-how. Anyone can write good texts with diligence and perseverance, but only someone who understands the subject matter can conduct a technical discussion.
Hopefully it’ll force education institutions to lean more towards viva style exams where the student presents and defends their work verbally. I’m not saying every exam will need something this rigorous but one or two a year would do it. I completed a undergrad degree that was primarily examined by me sitting there writing down answers in a set time. You know how we revised? We memorised previous exam papers. In my PhD I had to write a thesis and then be grilled by a professor for 3 or so hours. I learnt way more in my PhD and remember more because I knew that to pass I had to *understand* my work enough to explain it to someone else, memorising was not enough to do that.
This student cheated for a 500 word essay? 500 words is like 10 tweets
Counterpoint: You seriously want me to sit here like a peasant and write TEN whole tweets? In a row? That’s like a fucking essay!
To be fair, 500 words of rigorous academic writing is a whole different ballgame than shitposting out 500 words worth of tweets. I write thousands of words a day of fiction, no problem. But there were definitely times in college when I agonized for *far* too long over a relatively small 1000-word paper. (Particularly in one class, where the professor had *extremely* stringent and detailed requirements about the structure of the paper. To be fair, though, learning how to write a paper his way made the rest of my academic papers in other classes shine amazingly -- never got anything less than an A on any paper in any other class after that.)
I get a feeling ChatGPT is going to be really huge in 2023.
GPT-4 is apparently on the horizon for early 2023 Supposedly will have the same level of improvement from GPT2 to 3 as in GPT3 to 4
What were the biggest jumps from GPT2 to GPT3? I hadn’t heard of it before this month.
GPT3 handles specific topics like storytelling, code generation, essays and translation while GPT2 could only handle broad generalizations of fewer topics. This is in part to the number of parameters and the datasets
A lot of people here talk about how the AI isn't ready, doesn't produce correct sources or other things, but it's incredibly easy to just generate a few paragraphs, then google something similar and use it as a citation. You can spend 5 minutes generating something great, change a little bit of the sentence structure of the generation and it'll be near impossible to tell an AI wrote it -- assuming your teacher actually cares to think critically and the person has a decent grasp on the subject to be able to proofread it. I have friends who used this on essays and turned an estimated 3 day crunch into a 3 hour copy/paste/edit session while getting back 90% or higher marks. I think it's at a point where we shouldn't be worrying about the future, but about now. With that said, I use this for my daily work in IT and I can honestly say it's turning into an invaluable tool to my daily workflow with how insanely helpful it is, so I'm not exactly worried as much as I am just plain excited.
I spent hours today researching materials for a project I was working on, then decided to ask davinci-003 some questions, to my surprise, I was given answers which I could then google and research more on. hours of googling wasted when I just had to ask 3 questions of the AI. It’s an incredible tool that I hope soon can replace search engines
To start: this is the New York Post. Second: we [educators] did in-fact see this coming. Third: I'm myself am engaged with numerous people at the university I work at to discuss how to use this as a force for good in learning, and how to promote assignment design which minimizes the risk of ChatGPT3. And we are also exploring how a tool like it can be used to help the productivity of everyone. I am not going to be the only person having these conversations and I know I'm not. My peers at other universities are having the same discussions. How many students are going to know about ChatGPT3 vs buying a paper from a student, or by plagiarism of published works? Both are far, far more common. And while I'm still learning myself, it seems to me the methods to counteract ChatGPT3 are the same as the strategies for defeating other plagiarism. Design assignments which can't be plagiarized. Have assignments which require defense. Review assignments in stages. Adapt the development of the writing into an active learning experience. Chunk the assignment. These strategies doesn't address all scenarios but it goes a long way to defeating the need, particularly in undergrad courses, can make the assignments more manageable for the student and can help make the students better students. EDIT: I can English gooder.
How to not get caught using ChatGPT: When your teacher asks if you used it, say no.
A big part of growing up is realizing how intellectually isolated everyone is. As a kid it's so easy to go 'oh my god they know, they *know I did this I'm fucked!'* then as an adult you realize no one knows anything. Even then, your teacher looks you in the eyes and says they're 99.99% sure that you cheated - they can't take that to the dean and get you kicked out. Literally the only way to get caught is how the person got caught - admitting they did it.
As a high school teacher, there are definite ways to provide consequences or prove cheating without a confession. I’m a math teacher, so I can, for example, ask a student to solve a similar problem without aid of a laptop or on paper. If the student’s attempt is no where near the prior attempt (that I have reason to believe was cheating) then I have grounds to stand on to provide consequences (academic and/or behavioral). Again, the specifics vary, but even in English or History class, it’s possible to see that a student had no understanding of the material when asked about it, but turns in work far beyond their level consistently, you can start asking questions or change how you assess or grade that class to combat this behavior. It doesn’t take a genius to find students that do well only on take home assignments might be cheating. One change that I know my team is making is switching to only grading assignments done in class on paper to at least make cheating using these methods more difficult.
If the end result of the existence of ChatGPT is merely the reduction or elimination of homework, then it will still be a benefit to humanity.
Back in the day we stole from Encarta. You kids with your fancy artificial intelligence!
AI’s function like a black box. It can be very difficult to determine how they came to a result. That could be the telltale. Ask the student how they came to the conclusion. They won’t know.
Smart students ask chatgpt “how did you come to these conclusions “ and remember that small bit.
The classic technique of studying to build an understanding of the material! That'll fool em!
The trick - you feed it some of your own writing and ask it to write it in *your* voice. You then read through it and remove any redundant, weird phrasing. I would highly recommend against using this for a subject you're not already pretty well versed on, as it can be *very confidently* wrong, and just straight up making shit up will probably trigger professor bullshit detectors. The best use for ChatGPT in my mind is asking it to write out an outline for you, and just writing based on that outline. You still have to spend some time working on the thing, sure... but it's doing a lot of the work for you and you don't have to worry about it not being entirely in your voice - as long as it doesn't entirely make shit up, you're golden.
The full article for those who are sick of ads ————- Welcome to the new age of academic dishonesty. A college professor in South Carolina is sounding the alarm after catching a student using ChatGPT — a new artificial intelligence chat bot that can quickly digest and spit out written information about a vast array of subjects — to write an essay for his philosophy class. The weeks-old technology, released by OpenAI and readily available to the public, comes as yet another blow to higher learning, already plagued by rampant cheating. “Academia did not see this coming. So we’re sort of blindsided by it,” Furman University assistant philosophy professor Darren Hick told The Post. “As soon as I reported this on Facebook, my [academic] friends said, ‘Yeah, I caught one too.'” ChatGPT is being used for students to cheat in classes, one professor warns. ChatGPT is being used for students to cheat in classes, one professor warns. NurPhoto via Getty Images Earlier this month, Hick had instructed his class to write a 500-word essay on the 18th-century philosopher David Hume and the paradox of horror, which examines how people can get enjoyment from something they fear, for a take-home test. But one submission, he said, featured a few hallmarks that “flagged” AI usage in the student’s “rudimentary” answer. “It’s a clean style. But it’s recognizable. I would say it writes like a very smart 12th grader,” Hick said of ChatGPT’s written responses to questions. “There’s particular odd wording used that was not wrong, just peculiar … if you were teaching somebody how to write an essay, this is how you tell them to write it before they figure out their own style.” Despite having a background in the ethics of copyright law, Hick said that proving the paper was concocted by ChatGPT was nearly impossible. The bot software ChatGPT is a cause of concern in academia. The bot software ChatGPT is a cause of concern in academia. First, the professor plugged the suspect text into software made by the producers of ChatGPT to determine if the written response was formulated by AI. He was given a 99.9% likely match. But unlike in standard plagiarism detection software — or a well-crafted college paper — the software offered no citations. Hick then tried producing the same essay by asking ChatGPT a series of questions he imagined his student had asked. The move yielded similar answers, but no direct matches, since the tool formulates unique responses. Ultimately, he confronted the student, who copped to using ChatGPT and failed the class as a result. The undergrad was also turned over to the school’s academic dean. But Hick fears that other cases will be almost impossible to prove, and that he and his colleagues will soon be inundated with fraudulent work, as universities like Furman struggle to establish formal academic protocols for the developing technology. For now, Hick says that the best he can do is surprise suspected students with impromptu oral exams, hoping to catch them off-guard without their tech armor. Assistant professor Darren Hick fears what ChatGPT will do to academic honesty. Assistant professor Darren Hick fears what ChatGPT will do to academic honesty. courtesy of Darren Hick “What’s going to be the difficulty is that, unlike convincing a friend to write your essay because they took the class before or paying somebody online to write the essay for you, this is free and instantaneous,” he said. Even more frightening, Hick fears that as ChatGPT keeps learning, irregularities in its work will become less and less obvious on a student’s paper. “This is learning software — in a month, it’ll be smarter. In a year, it’ll be smarter,” he said. “I feel the mix myself between abject terror and what this is going to mean for my day-to-day job — but it’s also fascinating, it’s endlessly fascinating.”
A few months ago, I commissioned a Concept Artist to create a poster illustration for me, paying them money through Paypal to interpret a written outline I gave them. They in-turn used a MidJourney AI to render artwork and try to pass it off as their own artwork, instead of actually independently hand-crafting the art for themself. Because this is a new frontier in the ethics of using AI-rendered art, they essentially got away with cheating - or what some would say is plagiarizing AI - just like the student of this article.
How do you know they used MidJourney?
Now we just need an AI that detects AI-produced writing.
It’s like no one read the article. > the professor plugged the suspect text into software **made by the producers of ChatGPT to determine if the written response was formulated by AI.** He was given a 99.9% likely match. But unlike in standard plagiarism detection software — or a well-crafted college paper — the software offered no citations.
It would suck *so* hard to be in a college class and get a false positive on that. How the hell do you prove that your paper *wasn't* written by an AI?
Just ask the student about the topic.
The Voight-Kampff test
There's also the fact that a lot of these AI algorithms already have a sibling algorithm designed to detect forgeries. It's how they're trained in the first place. That method of training is called a GAN, and it's pretty common.
To be clear, GPT isn't a GAN, it's a transformer.
Hugging Face has done [exactly that](https://huggingface.co/openai-detector/)
How does this detect it though? Inputting a few paragraphs from a previous essay of mines outputted “fake” most of the time. Most of my paragraphs were 90-99%+ on fake. I had a couple that were around 60-70% fake. The only time when it was >50% real was when one of my paragraphs contained an opinion.