ChatGPT has been a source of controversy ever since its release late last year. The AI program is able to answer questions, write stories or entire academic papers. With a simple press of a button, you have what would take professionals hours or days to write.
The fear around AI taking jobs isn’t particularly new. It is specifically problematic for professors who may be forced to police students who may use the tool to write and come up with ideas for them. Edrees Nawabi, LCC instructor of language and communication, shared his thoughts on ChatGPT.
“ChatGPT raises the floor for writing ability,” Nawabi said. “But it doesn’t come anywhere near the ceiling for writing ability.”
While the amount of information ChatGPT is able to output is impressive, the content within isn’t always accurate or sensical. OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT, under their limitations section even note that, “ChatGPT sometimes writes plausible-sounding but incorrect or nonsensical answers” showing that despite how impressive the tool is, it is not completely free of flaw.
Nawabi also compares ChatGPT to a field of study known as Simulation and Simulacrum. “It proves writing and rhetoric scholars have been writing and talking about these issues for decades now.” Simulation and Simulacrum, in short, is a philosophical concept which argues that concepts or symbols can create their own reality or meaning which is detached from its original meaning.
Another viewpoint comes from Jon Meyers, a media arts instructor. “I think all that AI technology is here to stay, and I think there’s ways for us to integrate it into our daily workflow. If it can actually be a launchpad for more creativity and for us to dig deeper, then it’s awesome. And then it’s just another tool in our toolkit. If it’s something that then ends up being used to dumb down society and dumb down our thought and to take that level of self away, then we get, I think, problems with it.”
Meyers continued with a very optimistic viewpoint of the program overall seeing it as a “tool” more than a detriment for creating with his final remark stating, “I think our notion of work in 50 years is going to be so different than what it was in the past 50. And there’s a lot of room to embrace that in some ways.”
Meyers overall welcomes ChatGPT seeing it more so as a tool that can expand horizons than something that can take away.
ChatGPT also has the attention of students such as Julian Bloom. “People make it out to be a little bit more of a big deal than it actually is. I think that there are a lot of positive aspects of what it’s capable of, but I think people are blowing it out of proportion.”
Bloom continues seeing the program as helpful in areas such as health, “I’ve seen examples of people getting workout plans that are made through ChatGPT. They’re like, ‘I have this diet and this is how much I weigh. This is what I want to do.’ And it’ll give them the information that they need.”
Another student, Sequoia Trumba, has been following ChatGPT closely for years. At first he found the program to be unintentionally funny in its infancy however as it became more advanced his concern grew.
“One of the things that actually concerns me about it is not the plagiarism issue, which is big for teachers and students at a school, Trumba said.” But the thing that really concerns me is that ChatGPT and language learning models as a whole do not have an idea of what truth is. When you ask them questions, the way they answer it is they look for language that they have gotten through their model. And that language might be from a reputable source or it might not. The model has no way of actually telling. It doesn’t know what reputable information looks like. It just knows what language looks like and how to emulate human writing.”
“That’s where my concerns actually come from. I don’t think it’s actually a good model of truth. Maybe it will help writers in the future, and it currently does, but it does not help in understanding the world around us”
It seems overall that ChatGPT has its perks with quick replies to complicated questions and a helpful tool that can help anyone. However, the question overall is if people can trust those replies as the program develops.
