Hamilton College should embrace AI | by The Spectator | Oct, 2023 … – The Spectator
Sign up
Sign In
Sign up
Sign In
The Spectator
Follow
The Spectator
—
Listen
Share
The recent proliferation of generative artificial intelligence (AI) programs, from Open AI’s ChatGPT to Google’s Bard, has raised significant questions regarding what role this technology should have (if any) in an academic setting. Upon initial glance, the dishonest uses of generative AI are apparent: a student could type an essay prompt into ChatGPT and get an output that would leave one’s professor impressed with the style, structure, and knowledge embedded in the text. Many assume that this act would save the student hours of effort and, depending on the professor’s standards, they would achieve their desired grade.
Generative AI’s productivity effects are well documented — an April report by Goldman Sachs found that generative AI could raise global GDP by seven percent over the next ten years. However, academics do not always align with productivity, and rightfully so. It may take less time to write using ChatGPT, but it comes at the cost of learning how to write efficiently. Being efficient, whether it is in writing or any other task, takes effort and should be taught in class. If using generative AI means that students will be less capable of writing concisely, a skill important in the professional realm (to my knowledge), then its use should be avoided.
However, this idea involves a couple of assumptions about ChatGPT that are untrue. The first is that ChatGPT can completely replace the work of writing an essay and the second is that it serves no other purpose than for cheating.
Although it is a revolutionary technology, ChatGPT is well known for its ‘hallucinations’ (content that seems truthful but in reality is made up), which would lead any student astray and cost them dearly when their professor notices the inaccuracy. These falsities even extend to citations, with fake sources being generated based on ChatGPT’s perception of what topics make sense for a writer to have written about. In an infamous case of over-reliance on ChatGPT, a New York-based lawyer ended up using made-up cases regarding airlines in a suit against Avianca Airlines. Thus, even if one uses ChatGPT to write their entire essay, fact-checking and the possibility of fake sources will require effort that those who find their own sources would not have to go through.
These faults should not take away from the remarkable capabilities of ChatGPT, which have relevance in an academic setting. Generative AI can play an important role in the planning and outlining of an essay or research paper. In this way, it acts as a streamlined Wikipedia: you are not going to cite Wikipedia but its content is great for gaining an understanding of a topic and its listed sources provide for the beginnings of research. For example, I wrote a research paper last term on the reasons why states use private military companies in conflict — if I type “Why do states use private military companies” into ChatGPT, I get a concise summary of reasons ranging from “cost-effectiveness” to “reducing casualty risk.” These answers align with my own findings after hours of research, meaning that I could have potentially completed this research more efficiently if I had used ChatGPT as a starting point for my research.
Think of the potential benefits of this technology: one can learn about an unknown topic with only a quick input into ChatGPT. I know nothing about marine biology, but a quick search of “whale migration patterns” gives me enough information to understand the basics of this subject. Academically, ChatGPT can substitute using Google to look up a Wikipedia article or Encyclopedia Britannica when one is new to a subject and could provide professors with an interesting exercise in seeing whether students can identify misinformation.
The specifics of its use still need to be worked through and will vary based on class goals and subject. However, the fact remains that Hamilton professors and students will gain a lot more value from working with ChatGPT than banning it.
—
—
The Spectator
Stories from the staff.
The Spectator
in
The Spectator
—
The Spectator
in
The Spectator
—
The Spectator
in
The Spectator
—
The Spectator
in
The Spectator
—
Shari Lopatin
in
An Injustice!
—
94
Adrian CDTPPW
in
Read or Die!
—
43
Thomas Smith
in
The Generator
—
45
Rose Marry
in
Arcturus
—
15
Kaylin Hamilton
in
Prism & Pen
—
18
Christine Stevens
in
The Haven
—
34
Help
Status
Blog
Careers
Privacy
Terms
About
Text to speech
Teams
