←back to thread

A Student's Guide to Writing with ChatGPT

(openai.com)
323 points timbilt | 1 comments | 13 Nov 24 19:26 UTC | HN request time: 0.547s | source
Show context
ratedgene ◴[13 Nov 24 20:32 UTC] No.42129665[source]▶
I was talking to a teacher today that works with me at length about the impact of AI LLM models are having now when considering student's attitude towards learning.

When I was young, I refused to learn geography because we had map applications. I could just look it up. I did the same for anything I could, offload the cognitive overhead to something better -- I think this is something we all do consciously or not.

That attitude seems to be the case for students now, "Why do I need to do this when an LLM can just do it better?"

This led us to the conclusion:

1. How do you construct challenges that AI can't solve? 2. What skills will humans need next?

We talked about "critical thinking", "creative problem solving", and "comprehension of complex systems" as the next step, but even when discussing this, how long will it be until more models or workflows catch up?

I think this should lead to a fundamental shift in how we work WITH AI in every facet of education. How can a human be a facilitator and shepherd of the workflows in such a way that can complement the model and grow the human?

I also think there should be more education around basic models and how they work as an introductory course to students of all ages, specifically around the trustworthiness of output from these models.

We'll need to rethink education and what we really desire from humans to figure out how this makes sense in the face of traditional rituals of education.

replies(12): >>42129683 #>>42129718 #>>42129742 #>>42129844 #>>42130036 #>>42130165 #>>42130200 #>>42130240 #>>42130245 #>>42130568 #>>42135482 #>>42137623 #
Der_Einzige ◴[13 Nov 24 21:11 UTC] No.42130036[source]▶
The correct answer, and you'd see it if folks paid attention to the constant linkedin "AI researcher/ML Engineer job postings are up 10% week over week" banners, is to aggressively reorient education in society to education about how to use AI systems.

This rustles a TON of feathers to even broach as a topic, but it's the only correct one. The AI engineer will eat everything, including your educational system, in 5-10 years. You can either swim against the current and be ate by the sharks or swim with it and survive longer. I'll make sure my kids are learning about AI related concepts from the very beginning.

This was also the correct way to handle it circa the calculator era. We should have made most people get very good at using calculators, and doing "computational math" since that's the vast majority of real world math that most people have to do. Imagine a world where Statistics was primarily taught with Excel/R instead of with paper. It'd be better, I promise you!

But instead, we have to live in a world of luddites and authoritarians, who invent wonderful miracle tools and then tell you not to use them because you must struggle. The tyrant in their mind must be inflicted upon those under them!

It is far better to spend one class period, teaching the rote long multiplication technique, and then focus on word problems and applications of using it (via calculator), than to literally steal the time of children and make them hate math by forcing them to do times tables, again and again. Luddites are time thieves.

replies(4): >>42130159 #>>42130400 #>>42130637 #>>42131030 #
1. SkyBelow ◴[13 Nov 24 21:48 UTC] No.42130400[source]▶
> We should have made most people get very good at using calculators, and doing "computational math" since that's the vast majority of real world math that most people have to do.

I strongly disagree. I've seen the impact of students who used calculators to the point they limited their ability to do math. When presented with math in other fields, ones where there isn't a simple equation to plug into a calculator, they fail to process the math because they don't have the number sense. Things like looking over a few experiments in chemistry and looking for patterns become a struggle because noticing the implication that 2L of hydrogen and 1L of oxygen create 2L of water vapor being the same as 2 parts hydrogen plus 1 part oxygen creates 2 part water, which then means that 2 molecules of hydrogen plush 1 molecule of oxygen create 2 molecules of water, all of this implying that 1 molecule of oxygen has to be made of some even number of oxygen atoms so that it can be split in half to make up the 2 water molecules which must have the same amount of oxygen atoms in both. (This is part of a larger series of problems relating to how chemist work out the empirical formula in the past, eventually leading to the molecular formula, and then leading to discovering molecular weight and a whole host of other properties we now know about atoms.)

Without these skills, they are able to build the techniques needed to solve newer harder problems, much less do independent work in the related fields after college.

>Imagine a world where Statistics was primarily taught with Excel/R instead of with paper. It'd be better, I promise you!

I had to take two very different stats classes back in college. One was the raw math, the other was how to plug things into a tool and get an answer. The one involving the tool was far less useful. People learned how to use the tool for simple test cases, but there was no foundation for the larger problems or critiquing certain statistical methodologies. Things like the underlying assumptions of the model weren't touched, meaning students would have had a much harder time when dealing with a population who greatly differed from the assumption.

Rote repetition may not be the most efficient way to learn something, but that doesn't mean avoiding learning it and letting a machine do it for you is better.