one factor out of many when used as a part of an investigation determining a piece of content’s source and making a holistic assessment of academic dishonesty or plagiarism.
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.
Ultimately, we believe it will be necessary for students to learn how to navigate a world where tools like ChatGPT are commonplace. This includes potentially learning new kinds of skills, like how to effectively use a language model, as well as about the general limitations and failure modes that these models exhibit.
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.
Some of this is STEM education, but much of it also draws on students’ understanding of ethics, media literacy, ability to verify information from different sources, and other skills from the arts, social sciences, and humanities.
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.
While tools like ChatGPT can often generate answers that sound reasonable, they can not be relied upon to be accurate consistently or across every domain. Sometimes the model will offer an argument that doesn't make sense or is wrong. Other times it may fabricate source names, direct quotations, citations, and other details. Additionally, across some topics the model may distort the truth – for example, by asserting there is one answer when there isn't or by misrepresenting the relative strength of two opposing arguments.
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.
While the model may appear to give confident and reasonable sounding answers,
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.
. Web browsing capabilities and improving factual accuracy are an open research area that you can learn more in our blog post on WebGPT.
Try PerplexityAI for an example of this. Google's Bard should be another example when released.
subtle ways.
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.
Verifying AI recommendations often requires a high degree of expertise,
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.
students may need to develop more skepticism of information sources, given the potential for AI to assist in the spread of inaccurate content.
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.
Educators should also disclose the use of ChatGPT in generating learning materials, and ask students to do so when they incorporate the use of ChatGPT in assignments or activities.
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).
export their ChatGPT use and share it with educators. Currently students can do this with third-party browser extensions.
This would be wonderful. Currently we can use the ShareGPT extension for this.
a starting point for discussion among education professionals and language model providers for the use and impact of AI on education.
I appreciate the open and humble tone here and the invitation to further discussion.
they and their educators should understand the limitations of the tools outlined below.
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.
custom tutoring tools
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.