Denyse at MindMatters points to an eminently wise essay on AI.
Denyse:
Others are worried that ChatGPT will detract from a “love of learning” and “critical thinking,” according to Bloomberg. The new AI tool has cast a wrench in plagiarism detection and poses even philosophical questions about what education should be FOR. According to college professor Jeffrey Bilbro, eliminating the discipline and struggle required to think and write well will handicap students in the long run.
= = = = =
Back to me:
The basic question about the purpose of training is universal and permanent. I struggled with it when I was teaching electronics, and I still struggle when writing courseware. I wanted the students to endure ‘productive struggle’, and to its credit DeVry was built around real practice. But most of the students just wanted to memorize the formulas and get the credential so they could move out into the world and start making money.
In the end the students were right whether they knew it or not. You aren’t really struggling TOWARD A PURPOSE unless you’re doing it for money as an occupation. Pay for value creates the purpose.
Students who practice writing the best prompt for Chat are in fact practicing and learning a skill. They’re NOT learning how to write or draw or make music. They’re learning how to MANAGE people who write and draw and make music. Send out a request for an essay or a drawing. Receive dozens of tries from would-be writers or artists. Select the one you like.
Managing and selecting are necessary layers in real publishing or manufacturing, but delegating the actual designing to a machine deprives all real designers of a chance to practice for money.
Bilbro emphasizes the consensus quality of Chat’s output. It will always spit out the approved fashionable ESG/DEI viewpoint. This is what corporate managers already want, so it’s ideal for their purposes. It’s not ideal for the advancement of knowledge.
In the worlds of writing and entertainment, the problem is sorting itself out. Real writers and real painters and real singers can find a paid outlet in places like Substack and Etsy and Tiktok. The corporate world will continue to produce mediocre consensus crap, and many people will continue to be satisfied by it. The life of a non-consensus creator has always been insecure. That’s part of the struggle.
Non-consensus science is more endangered than non-consensus painting. There’s no Etsy for experimenters and researchers who break out of Tenure and Peer Review.
Polistra's Mill 