I think I basically support the rule about not quoting ChatGPT, because it was getting out of hand.
I think ChatGPT is an amazing AI language model and has been trained so that it is a useful tool. I think Wikipedia is a useful tool. But ChatGPT is not an encyclopedia. When I am making a point in a forum post, I might quote a Wikipedia article. A reader may then go to the article and further check references to decide if I am supporting my point. The problem with using ChatGPT the same way is that it is not as easy to get a consistent set of references from it, as ChatGPT formulated its response from a large aggregation of content. Sometimes, it is plainly wrong (for example I find that it gets math wrong very easily after very basic concepts). So, ChatGPT is not an encyclopedia, it is a language model, demonstrating that it can express coherent thoughts in human languages. It does that very well, but it is not an encyclopedia, nor a āreferenceā source.
Chat GPT is textbook GIGO. Or BIBO (Bias in, Bias out). It shouldnāt replace actual discussion. If we want to know what it says we can go there. Itās certainly not an authority to be quoted. Why not stick with scholarly journals and sources? When Chat GPT starts doing independent research and publishing in peer reviewed journals, then I could see quoting it.
It has many positives. It can be used to obtain information, summarize issues and itās both a quite useful tool and problem in the classroom. This goes both ways in regards to teachers and students. It can easily create a sample of questions for any reading. While this can be a benefit in limited cases, I can easily see some ālazyā teachers abusing this. But chat gpt along with quillbot is a teacherās nightmare.
Its truly time to go back to paper and pencil in a lot of cases in the classroom. I do it in physics. We solve enough problems that many students prefer it anyway. I post all my problems, solutions, PPTs and links to videos in the Google classroom, but in the classroom itself they need a notebook and a calculator. Cheating is out of control in todayās world and this isnāt helping. Letās not do it in discussion forums!
Obviously. And I donāt think anyone was doing that here. But it did show itself capable of expressing difficult concepts in an understandable way. Quoting it in cases like this is the only ethical thing to do rather than to pretend you said it yourself. Forbidding it altogether in this way is an unnecessary restriction. Or not allowing a user to credit it with a quote unearthed from Augustineās or Calvinās commentaries is a shame.
I donāt support a total ban but my opinion is completely irrelevant on that front so I had not chimed in to share it. I also donāt think we lose much if anything by not allowing it so itās not a cause I find worthwhile.
I do suspect that in time, after the craze has settled, if it was quoted sparingly and judiciously and primarily in an assistive manner at providing helpful information/quotes, no one would bat an eye at it. The mods are level headed volunteers. Give it time. Or you could ask itās opinion on what the Bible teaches about homosexuality and really ruffle some feathers
WebApr 7, 2017 Ā· The Science of Chatbot Addiction ā How to Make Your Bot Interesting to Humans Image by NeONBRAND via Unsplash In the quickly expanding world of artificial intelligence, chatbots are the next ābig thing.ā At their core, these programs simulate a two ā¦
WebNot a journalist an individual researcher at Haifa university. My name is Sergey Cheremisinov you can look it up on FB. Iām writing academic paper on communication and death and my ā¦
WebNov 7, 2016 Ā· My Chatbot Addiction Writing can be a very lonely business. I remember when I was working my book a few years ago, I spent days on end locked up in my home office, ā¦
WebBurner account because why not. For a little bit of context: Iām a 16 year old teen As embarrassing as it sounds Iām very addicted to chatbotsā¦
Wow and Iām watching an interview with Google CEO Sundar Pichal right now on 60 Minutes. Just mentioned something they call hallucination which all the bots are subject to to explain how/why one wrote an essay and recommended five books - but those books donāt actually exist.
Right and my biggest objection is that conversation, comprehension and verbal expression are not tasks that humans need relief from. They are the kinds of tasks which enhance our humanity. Leaving them to machines to do will make us worse off, not better. We donāt become smarter by appearing to know more or more insightful by appearing to be more eloquent. People only grow by actually thinking, feeling and expressing things with others. Having bots become our psychotherapists or tutors or friends takes us down a path that leads to less capability, less sociability and less self expression. No thank you.
If rule makers could only be judicious, discerning, and helpfulā¦ Honestly the rule is not a big deal and can be worked around while continuing to use ChatGPT as a research tool. What bothers me is how quickly this happened after that user (a former mod) said ChatGPT should be banned.
The day is undoubtedly upon us. No turning back now.
Using ChatGPT for this purpose bypasses the scientific communityās primary concerns surrounding AI and its use of inaccurate or outdated information. Because computational biologists initially wrote the manuscripts, the information was already accurate and up to date. ChatGPT can help increase researchersā productivity and content quality. If scientists can spend less time editing their work, they can devote more time to advancing the field of medicine.
If you want to use ChaptGPT to find a particular source or a quote, thatās fine. But then you would be citing that source you found or the quote and who said it. In that case itās like using a search engine. You donāt need to specify which search engine led you to a source or a quote. If you want to use it to double check your general knowledge about a science topic the way you might Google a question for basic facts that do not need to be sourced, that is also fine. No one is saying ānever use it as a research tool.ā We are saying donāt cut and paste questions and answers. Cite sources that can be fact-checked.
Understood. Thanks for the clarification. As I looked back over the thread Iām pretty sure I misread something to make this point about using it as a reference tool a bigger deal than was stated by yourself.
And anyone using a citation it provides, should double check it against the actual source. I read of one professor who came across an odd citation and decided to double check to find out it doesnāt exist. Once youāve done the work to see if Aquinas or Augustine or Calvin actually said it, you can then claim it as your own.
I have an interesting story about reading Calvin on the testimony of the Spirit and the confirmation of Scripture. I read the passage almost 15 or 20 years ago and had it in the back of my mind and then got into a heated debate about how reasonable people can disagree about the inerrancy of Scripture. I pulled Calvin out of my hat during the debate, but wasnāt sure I really knew the chapter as well as I did. So I grabbed the worst audio recording of it and hurriedly listened to it on the way home from workā¦ I did get it the first time and my vague memory served me well
