skyblue1991
Well-Known Member
The next big thing to be disruptive in the tech world, or a flash in the pan that will be forgotten about this time next year?
Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk
Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk
ChatGPT (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter skyblue1991
- Start date
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
I’m interested in using it to churn out a CV or response to standard interview/application questions.
Nick
Administrator
I have asked it to write a sales pitch for something and it was actually pretty good.
Not so much for a CV but I guess it's how you word what you put in
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Would probably be better at responding to those common job questions that get you to write in a STAR format. Getting nowhere with my CV as is so may as well try.
Skybluefaz
Well-Known Member
Do you know if Google penalises chatGPT content?
Sick Boy
Well-Known Member
I have tested it on a couple of test sites and it’s ranked but it’s definitely not a good idea to use it from a long term perspective because it’s only a matter of time before it gets clamped down on and penalised, IMO. There are already tools out there to detect it, so it won’t be long.
You’re also effectively just recycling what is already online anyway. That’s not to say it can’t have its uses in other areas but no AI tool should be used to create the majority of content - a lot of people are doing it though and charging for it.
Skybluefaz
Well-Known Member
I've got a job on that includes some content creation at the moment. It's the first time I've used ChatGPT to generate a sample blog post. Ran it through an ai detector and it detected it no sweat.
It all feels a bit dirty so I won't be using it. Having said that, it seems to be factually accurate so it's given me a decent framework if nothing else.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Already got 2 or 3 tools that can detect those
Sick Boy
Well-Known Member
Probably not her best idea.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Interesting question on what teaching should do as these tools become more useful. Do you ignore/ban them, or teach students to use them appropriately, or look at entirely different assessment methods?
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
You ban them. Already causing problems for my wife as students are trying to use it to write essays for them-which undermines The discipline of having to craft your own argument.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Im not sure that practicable in the long term. Would have to be controlled conditions. “The discipline of having to craft your own argument” sounds a lot like “using slate will ruin student memory” to me. There’s still skill in using tools effectively.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Then we may as well do away with humanities and the arts.
Using calculators in exams didn't mean we did away with maths. So long as society places value on original thinking in humanity and the arts, then teaching it will always be valuable.
Considering Microsoft gave it something like 7 billion and are working on implementing it on bing its here to stay, but it wont effect tech industry, its just a short cut to googling.
Oh and google have their own AI also for the past 4 or so years they just didnt release it. its way more tuned and reliable than ChatGPT
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
I suspect this is somewhat missing the point. What’s being suggested is that we put creativity and originality in the hands of a machine-which is fine, but it will make a lot of academic disciplines redundant as a result.
A calculator provides faster means to an end. An essay writing AI provides the end product without any thought from the student.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Don’t threaten me with a good time
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
If we’ve solved the problem through technology though the problem changes. I had this all the freaking time teaching Computing. Stuff that was to mark band skills two years later was a wizard a five year old could click through.
The problem would now be assessing and editing the output of such machines just like you need to know some maths to check the output of a calculator.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
In the sciences AI would work brilliantly in organic synthesis to find routes to making previously inaccessible compounds. Some robots can now even do the lab work on that themselves.
But we are entering into dangerous territory if we allow machines to do all creative thinking and critical analysis for us. We won’t learn from the experience. Unless we ultimately want to move to Oak Academy nationwide
I’m not suggesting we put creativity and originality in the hands of a machine, I’m saying the opposite. Again - if society places value on organic original/critical thought, then it will be worth teaching to kids, regardless of what AI can do in the meantime. Technological advancements make all kind of academic disciplines (and jobs/technologies etc) redundant, but it’s hard to definitively say if that’s a Bad Thing, and it doesn’t mean they disappear or lose all value either.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
It's already passed so worked out fine. Obviously amended it a fair amount but acts as a brilliant baseline.
Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk
Really? I think there’s been all kinds of machine-generated art and music which has been very popular. Automation already plays a huge role in the news and advertising industries. It may all need human input to get it there, but the same is true for ChatGPT.
The societal shift will be enormous but in practice these things are rarely weighed up beforehand. I’m an optimist though!
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
This is literally what people said when every other technological advancement came around. What it actually means is those skills are available to others who don’t have the time or inclination to spend their lives practicing something and those that do can move on to new problems.
Take medical scan analysis for example. Now a doctor only has to confirm a few samples selected by an ML model and not waste their time and their skill set changes to spotting common issues with that process. Now their productivity is enhanced and we have more doctors for the same input. Good stuff.
Movie maker and the like didn’t make everyone into Spielberg but it meant those limited by access to great tools or with a great idea but not cash to hire a crew of editors and graphics people could produce something much easier.
A good artist/writer will always outperform an AI, but the thousands of blog writers and banner creators may be out of business. Just like manufacturing didn’t entirely kill hand made products, it just put a premium on the ones good enough to remain.
Let’s be honest there will still be artists and creatives and just like now most of them will be crap but enjoy it for its own sake. And a few will be good and make bank. But fewer will spend their time creating ad copy or YouTube channel banners or whatever cos anyone can do that with a tool.
Schools can’t bury their head in the sand and pretend the world students will go out into doesn’t exist and it’s still the Victorian era with desks and ink pots no matter how much more comfortable that makes teachers feel.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Wow
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
I don't think it would do away with humanities and the arts. Read a book of criticism from the 1990s, and it's a very different approach to today. How toanalyse texts and the past progresses, moves on anyway, and anybody who follows the outdated methods ends up with a bad mark. I don't know what the future approaches would be, but they will develop to distinguish themselves from AI.
Sick Boy
Well-Known Member
Yeah it’s a decent framework to build upon and then add additional research/value too, otherwise it’s just recycling what’s already online.
It’s long been the goal of Google to be the ‘source’ of information/ecommerce purchases without leaving it, IMO….this is the next step towards that.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
To be a pedant: it’s not just recycling what’s online. Large language models are trained by building a model of the probability of the next word based on previous words (tokens). That model is trained on a variety of sources including the net but it doesn’t take wholesale elements like some image generation models do.
The reason ChatGPT is different is that most LMs are tuned by predicting the next token on a webpage text, but ChatGPT is tuned with human input from people hired and screened. So instead of optimising for purely guessing the next word, it’s optimised for being accurate to the users intention.
Its basically a fancy equivalent of that game where you just press the next suggested word on your phone keypad like: “I like SBT because I have to pay to be able and I can’t change it.” Just better trained.
