ChatGPT sends shockwaves across college campuses

It's multifaceted, but part of it is scaring them straight--you're going to go up against an interviewer and not only do you have to convince them you know what you're talking about, you have to do that better than any other candidates who are interviewing.

And--hey--if you want to be $x0,000 in debt with no job prospects, there are faster and easier ways to do that. Why bother coming to class? Just buy an expensive sports car. At least you'll have a nice car to show for it until it gets repossessed.

Another part of it is lesson and project optimization. Overwhelmed students are more likely to cheat. So... is it possible to teach the same topic just as effectively with less time or mental effort requirements? And yes, it often is. Less can be more.

Yet another part is maintaining student engagement by being there for them. I'm lucky enough to teach at a university where class sizes rarely exceed 30, which means I can answer questions in their medium of choice very frequently throughout the day. I try to let them know I'm on their team, and we'll slay this dragon together.

Can ChatGPT solve their programming projects for them? Hell yes. And if not this year, very likely next year. And I know I won't be able to tell the difference between a ChatGPT solution and the solution of a capable student.

The only sensible option is to get them to not want to use it.

Edit: get them not to want to use it to cheat, in particular. It's a pretty powerful tool for figuring things out.

AI “detectors” are not going to work in the long run. Students can easily use tech to rewrite.

Graded work will need to change. I believe a shift towards oral defense of a research topic is going to be needed, or in-person testing, or hands-on assignments where permitted.

Is the graded essay dead? Possibly.

I’ve found it incredibly useful as a bespoke tutor. The professor explains something complicated or that you don’t know? Ask it mid-lecture for a simpler explanation. I’ve used it to analyze papers, explain concepts, or grade my own work. It’s a fantastic learning tool.

Personally I think the only realistic / sure fire testing method would be a student sitting down with a professor and just discussing the material. Q&A, "show me what you know" or even just discussion would work... heck the student might learn more... maybe that's even a path to a better place?

That's assuming we actually want to know / care if the student is learning anything.

Few if any, given ChatGPT was announced at the end of November...

These students are going to be entering a workplace where language models and all other iterations of AI will be prevalent and expected to be used in day to day work. There is zero reason students shouldn't also get familiar with the technology instead of pretending it doesn't exist.

ChatGPT still spits out stuff that doesn't work, generates code that requires libraries that don't exist, and more. Used well, it can be a force multiplier, like the aforementioned calculator. Used without understanding, it will only help you make a mess faster. "I shaved 50 yaks instead of 1."

Many of us with no real incentive to stay relevant wont do much more than read a headline or have a funny conversation with chatgpt.

But these students have to play the cat and mouse game from day one. Saving time where possible and actually learning at their own discretion, not getting exposed or expelled.

1. https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/11u21ie/the_...

  An anecdote, but I recently was asked to review the essay of a student who I had not taught. I became highly suspicious it had been generated by ChatGPT, because it had the "feel" of its output. The clincher was that it had an entire page of references... all of which were fake. They all looked plausible, and even had URLs. But not one of them was accurate, and all of the URLs were dead, and all investigation made it clear there references had never existed. I was somewhat amazed, both at the gall of a chatbot inventing fake references, and for the student who clearly did not click on even one of the generated links, yet had still asked for an essay re-grade!!

  One experiment I ran with it recently was to ask it about the RIPPLE, which is a nuclear weapon design that was tested in the 1960s. The details of the RIPPLE are not public, but the fact of its existence, who invented it, and its testing are, as well as the some very broad pieces of information about it. Anyway, I repeatedly asked ChatGPT how the RIPPLE worked, and why it was called the RIPPLE, and every time it gave me a totally new and contradictory answer, freely making it up each time. After giving me maybe 6 different answers in a row it then noticed it was giving me contradictions, and from that point onward claimed that the most recent answer was correct. I was impressed at how inconsistent it was, that you could just ask it the same thing over and over again and it would just make new things up each time. The only consistency it gave me was wrong: it repeatedly emphasized that the design was entire hypothetical and never tested, which is false (it was tested at least four times).

  In a separate exchange, I asked it to ask me a question, and when (for whatever reason) I told it I was interested in nuclear weapons, it began to lecture me on how this was a topic that should be left to experts. I then told it I was an expert, and it then started lecturing me on how an expert on this topic ought to behave and think. It almost seemed defensive. I thought it was pretty rich — an impressive mansplaining simulator, indeed.