Chao, just yesterday I submitted a feature story to be published in a widely-read newspaper in Southern California, about how the Cal State University system is applying AI in education. Time and time again, the professors I interviewed said the same thing: that students are using AI to get quick, essentially meaningless answers *without* engaging in their own critical thinking. This is becoming a real problem, something that extends far beyond the widespread CHEATING that students are doing with AI.
However, every academic I interviewed also added essentially the same thought: when students use this tool correctly, applying their own critical thinking skills to an ongoing "dialogue" with GenAI: (1) it's actually hard work and (2) they can learn things about the subject at hand, as well as themselves, in surprising ways. So I'm starting to understand that AI can indeed be leveraged in a positive, productive manner.
That said (and this final observation is coming from the admittedly stubborn "technophobe" within me): I'm not planning on plugging my words into a machine any time soon. For now, at least, I'll keep using my own brain, and gratefully tapping into the brains and souls of other human beings, when forming my own words. I'm not saying "never." I'm just saying "not anytime soon."
I do appreciate your thoughts on this, especially as someone who knows a lot about this fascinating (one can argue disturbing) tool.
Thank you Chao. I appreciate the sincere challenge you pose to examine my thinking, motivations, and perspectives. There's nothing but upside in that. I'm sitting with a potential lengthier reply. My brevity in this moment is certainly not for lack of things to say, but the need to consider what's useful, or how to say them. Additionally, I want to take to heart the points put forward here before replying. For now, thank you for being you, though I still believe you could have done that more effectively without using AI, an assertion that I'm sure is not surprising to you and with which you undoubtedly disagree. To be continued . . .
Chao - You have incorrectly charged me an annual subscription to your substack and I don't even follow you! Please rectify this and refund the annual $30 USD. Thanks.
Chao, just yesterday I submitted a feature story to be published in a widely-read newspaper in Southern California, about how the Cal State University system is applying AI in education. Time and time again, the professors I interviewed said the same thing: that students are using AI to get quick, essentially meaningless answers *without* engaging in their own critical thinking. This is becoming a real problem, something that extends far beyond the widespread CHEATING that students are doing with AI.
However, every academic I interviewed also added essentially the same thought: when students use this tool correctly, applying their own critical thinking skills to an ongoing "dialogue" with GenAI: (1) it's actually hard work and (2) they can learn things about the subject at hand, as well as themselves, in surprising ways. So I'm starting to understand that AI can indeed be leveraged in a positive, productive manner.
That said (and this final observation is coming from the admittedly stubborn "technophobe" within me): I'm not planning on plugging my words into a machine any time soon. For now, at least, I'll keep using my own brain, and gratefully tapping into the brains and souls of other human beings, when forming my own words. I'm not saying "never." I'm just saying "not anytime soon."
I do appreciate your thoughts on this, especially as someone who knows a lot about this fascinating (one can argue disturbing) tool.
Thanks, Larry for keeping such an open mind!
…if you ever need a.i. b.o. i can give a hypothetical bottle of hallucinated sasquatch musk…
thank god you have my back 😭
HA!!
My AI odor detector service is available to all friends here XD
Thank you Chao. I appreciate the sincere challenge you pose to examine my thinking, motivations, and perspectives. There's nothing but upside in that. I'm sitting with a potential lengthier reply. My brevity in this moment is certainly not for lack of things to say, but the need to consider what's useful, or how to say them. Additionally, I want to take to heart the points put forward here before replying. For now, thank you for being you, though I still believe you could have done that more effectively without using AI, an assertion that I'm sure is not surprising to you and with which you undoubtedly disagree. To be continued . . .
Chao - You have incorrectly charged me an annual subscription to your substack and I don't even follow you! Please rectify this and refund the annual $30 USD. Thanks.