Three AI Chatbots, Two Books, and One Weird Annotation Experiment by Remi Kalir on September 29, 2023 https://remikalir.com/blog/three-ai-chatbots-two-books-and-one-weird-annotation-experiment/

https://typeshare.co/go-go-golems/posts/nobody-likes-boring-ai-content-how-to-write-unique-marketing-copy-with-chatgpt

Of course this is the basis of keeping a zettelkasten for writing as well. When you can pull up prior ideas as a bank of information to work from, you're never starting from scratch, which is difficult not only for ChatGPT, but for people in general.

Cross reference research on naming "white" things versus naming with a more specific prompt like "white" things in your refrigerator.

https://openai.com/blog/teaching-with-ai

https://shindig.com/login/event/agifuture

This may be an interesting use case for artificial intelligence tools like ChatGPT which can provide the reader of complex material with simplified synopses to allow better penetration of the material (potentially by removing jargon, argot, etc.)

Kalir, Remi H. “Playing with Claude.” Academic blog. Remi Kalir (blog), August 25, 2023. https://remikalir.com/blog/playing-with-claude/.

"Reading with an artificial intelligence" seems like a fascinating way to participate in the Great Conversation.

Additional .pdf copy of this journal article with Hypothes.is annotations available by downloading: https://journals.sfu.ca/jalt/index.php/jalt/article/download/843/597

&list=PLdAbfZfaH_1I0vD3GsgbIdsLp6id6AOUb&index=9

https://myessayfeedback.ai/

Mills, Anna, Maha Bali, and Lance Eaton. “How Do We Respond to Generative AI in Education? Open Educational Practices Give Us a Framework for an Ongoing Process.” Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching 6, no. 1 (June 11, 2023): 16–30. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.34.

Annotation url: urn:x-pdf:bb16e6f65a326e4089ed46b15987c1e7

Search: https://jonudell.info/h/facet/?user=chrisaldrich&max=100&exactTagSearch=true&expanded=true&addQuoteContext=true&url=urn%3Ax-pdf%3Abb16e6f65a326e4089ed46b15987c1e7

What does open education tell us about AI in academia?

A Generative AI Primer on 2023-08-15 by Brian Basgen

ᔥGeoff Corb in LinkedIn update (accessed:: 2023-08-26 01:34:45)

I can see correlations between this idea and the "proximate future" idea presented in this article: https://techpolicy.press/artificial-intelligence-and-the-ever-receding-horizon-of-the-future/

Yes, getting them questioning the output is step one. We have to rediscover critical thinking in the Era of Text Generation.

This is no longer true with ChatGPT 4. According to Open AI, "GPT-4 can accept images as inputs and generate captions, classifications, and analyses." https://openai.com/product/gpt-4

ChatGPT Can't Kill Anything Worth Preserving<br /> by John Warner

Center for Innovations in Teaching and Learning

Leveraging Social Annotation in the Age of AI : Hypothesis

Slides for this presentation: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1wOmZiAKWsXru1Uv7_nH5S3KDCYHtdBiZYb1_ab58yeA/edit#slide=id.g15258ea6415_0_78

Video<br /> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5fqPirbb64

Annotation and AI Starter Assignments<br /> by Jeremy Dean

• students as fact-checkers
• students as content experts
• students as editors

With respect to the predictive text portion of ChatGPT, a good non-technical (non-mathematical) description of a related mathematical model is described in chapter 3 of:

Pierce, John Robinson. An Introduction to Information Theory: Symbols, Signals and Noise. Second, Revised. Dover Books on Mathematics. 1961. Reprint, Mineola, N.Y: Dover Publications, Inc., 1980. https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Information-Theory-Symbols-Mathematics/dp/0486240614.

I don't remember how I put this but this phrase seems so broad--we wouldn't all agree on adapting teaching, but we might all agree that we need to make explicit policies about AI.

I wonder what makes Onyper think students are learning these 'basic building blocks'--ChatGPT can produce them, but what is going on in the student's mind when they see what it produces? Reading a sample essay doesn't teach us to write...

Doesn't this imply that the purpose of the assignment is to produce a high quality product rather than the purpose being the student's learning?

How I would prompt ChatGPT to help me write an Introduction to Psychology Textbook<br /> by Mark Grabe

Contemplating writing an introductory psychology textbook (OER) using ChatGPT.

https://sharegpt.com/

<small><cite class='h-cite via'>ᔥ <span class='p-author h-card'>Hypothesis</span> in Liquid Margins 38: The rise of ChatGPT and how to work with and around it : Hypothesis (<time class='dt-published'>02/09/2023 16:11:54</time>)</cite></small>

Maybe start with Kevin Roose's conversation with "Sydney"--the alter-ego of the new AI powered Bing search/chat platform.

I've seen some push back on this idea in conversations on Twitter and elsewhere. I've heard some instructors say they don't necessarily have bandwidth for this kind of intimate pedagogy.

I'm sympathetic with that challenge--MANY teachers are overworked and overwhelmed--but I still don't think backing off of humnanizing education is the right approach. I'd rather focus systematically on freeing up teachers to use this approach.

Check out our follow-up post for practical ideas on how to use social annotation to build in more scaffolded process into your courses.

I really struggled with whether to mention plagiarism at all in this post. I didn't want to add additional hype to the concerns about "cheating students" and the surveillance side of edtech that has profited off it. But I wouldn't be being honest if "plagiarism" wasn't something mentioned by many of the frontline teachers that I work with on the daily.

What are the differences and affordances in moving from cadavre exquis to Eno/Schmidt's Oblique Strategies to ChatGPT?

https://web.hypothes.is/event/liquid-margins-38-hypothesis-on-chatgpt-tbd/

ChatGPT could be used as a writing prompt for writers to leverage for their work in much the same way that [[Benjamin Franklin]] rewrote existing works or the major plot point in the movie [[Finding Forrester]] in which Jamal used William's work as a springboard for his own.

Link to: https://hypothes.is/a/HPQLinKXEemyqafW9xlIFQ.

Or, since many of our students in higher ed will be entering the knowledge work sector, it's a fair question to ask: what do you want that sector to be like? Do you want those jobs to be more like the minder of intelligent machines? Or do you want it to be a place where the human in the loop is still a craftsman with agency?

inevitability is such an appropriate word here, because it captures a sort of techno-maximalist "any-benefit" mindset that sometimes pervades the ed-tech scene (and the position of many instructional designers and technologists)

Thank you! So beautifully and simply put ChatGPT is also used mostly for tasks where there is no one clear right answer.

Interesting phrase.

Perhaps in annotations?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utW4xlL2GkM

https://www.cyberneticforests.com/ai-images

Critical Topics: AI Images is an undergraduate class delivered for Bradley University in Spring 2023. It is meant to provide an overview of the context of AI art making tools and connects media studies, new media art, and data ethics with current events and debates in AI and generative art. Students will learn to think critically about these tools by using them: understand what they are by making work that reflects the context and histories of the tools.

Wordcraft Writers Workshop by Andy Coenen - PAIR, Daphne Ippolito - Brain Research Ann Yuan - PAIR, Sehmon Burnam - Magenta

cross reference: ChatGPT

Ippolito, Daphne, Ann Yuan, Andy Coenen, and Sehmon Burnam. “Creative Writing with an AI-Powered Writing Assistant: Perspectives from Professional Writers.” arXiv, November 9, 2022. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2211.05030.

See also: https://wordcraft-writers-workshop.appspot.com/learn

A Google project entering the public as ChatGPT was released and becoming popular.

For additional experiences, see: https://www.robinsloan.com/newsletters/authors-note/

This implies that it should take a stand but doesn't say why. Note that the New York Times article is not an editorial.

This summary also misses the stand implied by the choice to end on a quote from scholar Crystal Fleming explaining why she capitalizes "Black":

"'Frankly,” she said, “because I want to. That’s also something that I think we need to see more of in every field — black people doing what we want to do.'"

Why? What value do these people see in the capitalization? This summary ignores the idea of power, which is central in the article. Eligon writes that capitalizing "Black" "confers a sense of power and respect to black people, who have often been relegated to the lowest rungs of society through racist systems, black scholars say."

Here is common academic phrasing to contrast ideas: "some scholars argue...while others believe that..."

However, it's not a great choice to use this contrast phrasing for the particular ideas described here. The previous sentence used "while" to contrast one view in favor of "Black" with a view against it. But the two parts of this particular sentence are not opposing views. The first idea is against capitalization, whereas the second idea doesn't take a stance on "Black" vs. "black" but rather is weighing in on what we should do about terminology for whiteness if we do capitalize "Black."

This is an example of how ChatGPT uses academic phrasing in ways that read as natural and even sound intelligent, but on closer examination remind us that ChatGPT has no understanding of the ideas.

Here's a sample ChatGPT critical assessment of the NY Times article at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/26/us/black-african-american-style-debate.html

For contrast, see this human-written sample essay from the textbook How Arguments Work: A Guide to Writing and Analyzing Texts in College: https://human.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Composition/Advanced_Composition/Book%3A_How_Arguments_Work_-A_Guide_to_Writing_and_Analyzing_Texts_in_College(Mills)/04%3A_Assessing_the_Strength_of_an_Argument/4.11%3A_Sample_Assessment_Essays/4.11.02%3A_Sample_Assessment-_Typography_and_Identity

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1E8b-aY6R-CUMgXe0UTCsdyHWHDatBa1DaQBvdcuA_Kk/edit

AI in Education Resource Directory

<small><cite class='h-cite via'>ᔥ <span class='p-author h-card'>Hypothesis</span> in Liquid Margins 38: The rise of ChatGPT and how to work with and around it : Hypothesis (<time class='dt-published'>02/09/2023 16:11:54</time>)</cite></small>

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WpCeTyiWCPQ9MNCsFeKMDQLSTsg1oKfNIH6MzoSFXqQ/preview<br /> Policies related to ChatGPT and other AI Tools

<small><cite class='h-cite via'>ᔥ <span class='p-author h-card'>Hypothesis</span> in Liquid Margins 38: The rise of ChatGPT and how to work with and around it : Hypothesis (<time class='dt-published'>02/09/2023 16:11:54</time>)</cite></small>

Educator considerations for ChatGPT<br /> https://platform.openai.com/docs/chatgpt-education

<small><cite class='h-cite via'>ᔥ <span class='p-author h-card'>Hypothesis</span> in Liquid Margins 38: The rise of ChatGPT and how to work with and around it : Hypothesis (<time class='dt-published'>02/09/2023 16:11:54</time>)</cite></small>

I'm concerned people will see this and remember it without thinking of all the errors that are described later on in this document.

Glad they are addressing this, and I hope they will continue to offer such suggestions. I don't think ChatGPT should be classed as a journal. We really need a new way to acknowledge its use that doesn't imply that it was written with intention or that a person stands behind what it says.

Since there is a concern about the bias of the tool toward English and developed nations, it would be great if they could include global educators from the start.

I wonder how this information will be shared back so that other educators can benefit from it. I maintain a resource list for educators at https://wac.colostate.edu/repository/collections/ai-text-generators-and-teaching-writing-starting-points-for-inquiry/

It's still not clear to me how they can be used as evidence at of academic dishonesty at all, even in combination with other factors, when they have so many false positives and false negatives. I can see them used to initiate a conversation with a student and possibly a rewrite of a paper. This is tricky.

I agree, though I think we should emphasize teaching about the limitations before teaching how to use the models. Critical AI literacy must become part of digital literacy.

Glad they mention this since I am skeptical of claims that students need to learn prompt engineering. The rhetorical skills I use to prompt ChatGPT are mainly learned by writing and editing without it.

If we teach about ChatGPT, we might do well to showcase examples of these kinds of problems in output so that students develop an eye for them and an intuitive understanding that the model isn't thinking or reasoning or checking what it says.

This is a bigger problem when we use ChatGPT in education than in other arenas because students are coming in without expertise, seeking to learn from experts. They are especially susceptible to considering plausible ChatGPT outputs to be authoritative.

Try PerplexityAI for an example of this. Google's Bard should be another example when released.

Glad they mention this in the first line. People will see the various safeguards and assume that ChatGPT is safe because work has been done on this, but there are so many ways these biases can still surface, and since they are baked into the training data, there's not much prospect of eliminating them.

This is a central idea that I would wish were foregrounded. If we are trying to use auto-generated text in a situation in with truth matters, we need to be quite knowledgeable and also invest time in evaluating what that text says. Sometimes that takes more time than writing something ourselves.

It strikes me that OpenAI itself is warning of a coming flood of misinformation from language models. I'm glad they are doing so, and I hope they keep investing in improving their AI text classifier so we have some ways to distinguish human writing from machine-generated text.

Yes! We must begin to cultivate an ethic of transparency around synthetic text. We can acknowledge to students that we might sometimes be tempted to autogenerate a document and not acknowledge the role of ChatGPT (I have certainly felt this temptation).

This would be wonderful. Currently we can use the ShareGPT extension for this.

I appreciate these cautions, but I'm still concerned that by foregrounding the bulleted list of enticing possibilities, this document will mainly have the effect of encouraging experimentation with only lip service to the cautions.

I'm concerned that any use of ChatGPT for tutoring would fall under the "overreliance" category as defined below. Students who need tutoring do not usually have the expertise or the time to critically assess or double check everything the tutor tells them. ChatGPT already comes off as more authoritative than it is. It will come across as even more authoritative if teachers are recommending it as a tutor.

<small><cite class='h-cite via'>ᔥ <span class='p-author h-card'>Hypothesis</span> in Liquid Margins 38: The rise of ChatGPT and how to work with and around it : Hypothesis (<time class='dt-published'>02/09/2023 16:11:54</time>)</cite></small>

https://theconversation.com/how-chatgpt-robs-students-of-motivation-to-write-and-think-for-themselves-197875

<small><cite class='h-cite via'>ᔥ <span class='p-author h-card'>Hypothesis</span> in Liquid Margins 38: The rise of ChatGPT and how to work with and around it : Hypothesis (<time class='dt-published'>02/09/2023 16:11:54</time>)</cite></small>

https://hypothes.is/search?q=tag%3A%22ChatGPTedu%22

This take-down isn't actually address this question. It's using it as a dismissal.

It is a good question though and one not to be dismissed as its causes might interrogated.

I am impressed (while also skeptical of ChatGPT). Does that make me dumb?

Nice summary of the discourse on ChatGPT!

There's an interesting point to be made about process here. Can the same be said for course work: that writing for a class isn't about what you know it's about what you are learning.

Very sensible.

Making writing more of a process rather than a product, a process in which the teacher gives regular feedback to the student, would help build that relationship.

Interesting. Collaborating with the bot in composition. It gets you started, but you are still needed.

Provocative argument: ironically, it's the standardization of learning that is killed by AI writing platforms.

So what's the point, ChatGPT isn't really all that sophisticated in its analysis? Relies on cliched structures? Either way or both, I kind of buy it. It's not a creative writer. It' utilitarian.

There's also an interesting point to be made here in terms of the prompts teachers provide students for essays. They too need to be sophisticated rather than simply compare and contrast these two books.

Yes!

Writing good prompts could be something we teach students.

ChatGPT not good at integration of quotes, a key piece of writing from evidence.

Fair point.

Talk about "hype"!

But at what cost?

Yes! Not sure that means banning AI as a tool which this essay ends up arguing.

This turns into a very traditional argument of the don't use Wikipedia variety.

I'm still compelled by this idea TBH...

Wouldn't analysis and commentary on recent events be readily available on the Internet?

Interesting. It almost takes MORE work to use ChatGPT in the context of such heavily scaffolded writing process,

And if we're reading more of their writing through social annotation or other "steps" in the process, we also become familiar with their thinking.

Yes, I've never felt I was simply teaching writing when I taught composition. Writing was a visible end product of a lot of other work (reading, thinking, and non-summative pre-writing activities) that I was training students in.

Love this idea. Teaching students to own and enjoy their writing.

Or does it focus the learning? Just as I don't really care if my students know how to spell as long as they use spell check, what does writing with ChatGPT open up in terms of enabling students and instructors to focus on different aspects of writing.

Amen!

Important point.

This is important to remind students of too. And maybe a key area for teachers to focus on what students could contribute to a writing process that includes ChatGPT.

Perhaps the same with students. Not using ChatGPT to write the essay, but perhaps in the brainstorming process.

Interesting. Writing instructors could start to train students in writing prompts for AI. The rubrics below are not dissimilar from what we traditionally ask student to do in their writing. So maybe ChatGPT isn't the death of the essay!

I think it's important to move past the plagiarism aspect of the debates around ChatGPT, but don't think it's just "hype." Teachers are concerned.

What about accuracy? Textbooks go through a rigorous process of composition and editing to ensure accuracy. Most of what exists to be scraped on the internet does not. I realize this is an old Web 2.0 "problem."

(Would textbooks even be available for scraping by ChatGPT? What does it have access to?)

ChatGPT as a tutor. Perhaps with the same guardrails in place so that tutors don't do the work for the students.

What are the implications here for the writing instructor? What "computational" equivalent to basic calculation would then be no longer central to teaching writing?

This seems to point to process over product and more formative assessment or scaffolding as part of instruction.

So metacognition?

Yeah, is this even a new thing? It this the same debate we've always had?

Actually citation is possible with this extension.

Interesting. So creativity is not it's strength. It's imitative.

Yes, the practices are key! I doubt the battle of algorithms can be won by either side.

For higher education students and especially where its used as a support tool then I think it would be very useful to highlight how they may get the extra support they need. Not everyone cheats because they are lazy, or disorganised. If they get into higher education it's an achievement so to throw it away in this way could highlight deeper issues around support, well being etc.

I think this is crucial, along with educating the public, parents, students, other teachers about what it can and can't do. The more familiar people are then scarmongering and negative attitudes towards its use might be addressed quickly. Everyone is an expert and have their own views based on what they have read or been told so we may as well do what we can to promote ethical and sensible/useful examples of its application support teaching and learning.

raises concerns around permissions to use third party tools and submission of students work as well as what if its wrong? What would that do to the student trust etc?

As of 2nd Feb 2023 launch in the US (only) of ChatGPT3 premium service for $20 a month. Article here via CNN

Created by CommonLit and Quill.org Common Lit Quill.org Both non-profits which makes me feel better :)

Annotation!

Students annotating their own writing?

Great question!

Somewhat defeatist. Quit rather than evolve?

I wonder if there are analogs in math.

The graphic calculator, for example, must have changed how math was taught, removing the need for that lower-order computation in math.

This is probably scariest of all. ChatGBT as editor rather than author.

Interesting. Probably easy for AI develop this skill rather than a limit of the technology.

But, for now, maybe a good indicator of more sophisticated writing.

Wow, that's a provocative statement! What is meant by better here?

On some level, I've always felt that a poorly-written, but original essay is better than a well-written, well-analyzed but plagiarized one.

How about Hypothesis social annotation throughout a course and throughout the process of essay composition.

Yikes!

Great line, powerful claim.

Love this.

Annotation shows that messy process.

Be a lot cooler if it just said 42.

Very interesting. Hypothesis, in its small way, can perhaps help some educators...

Indeed!

And the reminder that writing (and knowledge production more generally) is always collaborative, has an audience, both potentially elided by relying on ChatGPT to generate prose/ideas.

Love it! Social annotation certainly help slow reading IMO.

Great assignment idea!

Something else we try to teach our students, right?

A kind of plagiarism in and of itself?

So true. Writing is hard, isn't it? ChatGPT sometimes makes it look easy. What will students make of that!?

This is a great analogy. I remember feeling the same way about EasyBib when teaching comp.

Yes! Would love to see an example of such an assignment.

Could one still argue that it's a component piece of the text/writing that is generated? Just like spelling, grammar, and citation are?

No doubt it's a lot MORE of the text that is generated and COULD be handed in completely as is in many cases. But could it nonetheless be seen as a kind of starting point for students to then focus on other work, other skills? Like the editing processes mentioned above.

Yes! And they ARE writing when they read and annotate, so they can still practice and instructors can still evaluate that skill. It's just a very different writing assignment than a final paper.

I have often wondered (when I was an English teacher), am I teaching writing or reading? Obviously the answer is both.

The product of so much English courses is paper writing, but that's also meant to be an assessment of a student's reading, right?

So maybe there's a shift to focus more on reading as a formative assessment that is needed?