Kathmandu. When Jocelyn Leitzinger asked her university students to write about the times they saw discrimination in their lives.
In many stories, he found out that a woman named Sally was a victim. “It was clear that ChatZipti had decided that it was the name of an ordinary woman,” said Leitzinger, who teaches undergraduate classes in business and society at the University of Illinois at Chicago. ”
Leitzinger estimated that half of his 180 students had improperly used ChatZipti at some point last semester, including writing about the ethics of artificial intelligence (AI).
He called it “ironic” and “mind-boggling”. Therefore, he was not surprised by recent research showing that students who use ChatGPT to write essays engage in less critical thinking.
The peer-reviewed preprint study was widely shared online and clearly resembled some frustrated teachers. The team of MIT researchers behind this paper has received more than 3,000 emails from all types of teachers since it was published online last month, lead author Natalia Kosmina said.
‘soulless’ AI essays
For the small study, 54 adult students from the Boston area were divided into three groups. One group used ChatGPT to write 20-minute essays, the other used a search engine, and the final group simply had to take the help of their own minds.
The researchers used EEG instruments to measure students’ brain activity, and two teachers scored the essays. ChatGPT users scored significantly worse than the brain-only group at all levels.
The EEG showed that different areas of their brain were connected to each other less often. More than 80 percent of the ChatGPT group could not quote anything from their recent essay compared to about 10 percent of the other two groups.
Until the third session, the ChatGPT group focused primarily on copying and pasting. According to the teachers, they could easily identify the ‘soulless’ ChatGPT essays because they had good grammar and structure but lacked creativity, personality and insight. Cosmina, however, opposed media reports claiming that the paper showed that the use of chatGPti makes people lazy or more stupid.
He pointed to the fourth session, when a brain-only group used ChatGPT to write their essay and demonstrated an even higher level of neural connectivity. Cosmina stressed that it was too early to draw conclusions from the study’s small sample size, but called for more research on how AI tools can be used more carefully to aid learning.
Ashley Juvinet, a neuroscientist at the University of California San Diego, who was not involved in the research, criticized some of the “wrong” titles misinterpreted from the preprint.
“In this paper, there is not enough evidence or methodological rigor to make any claims about the neural effects of the use of LLM (large language models such as ChatGPT) in our brain,” he said.
thinking outside the butt
Leitzinger said the research reflected the change in student essays since chatGPT was released in 2022, as both spelling errors and authentic insights became less common. He said that sometimes the students did not change the font when they copied it from chatGPT and pasted it.
But Leitzinger called for sympathy for students, saying universities in some classes are encouraging the use of AI, but others are banned, they can be confused. The usefulness of new AI tools is sometimes compared to the introduction of calculators, which require teachers to change their ways.
However, Leitzinger expressed concern that students do not need to know anything about the subject before sticking their essay questions to ChatGPT, leaving many important steps in the learning process.
A 20-year-old British university student who wants to remain anonymous said ChatGPT has found useful tools to collect lecture notes, search for the Internet and generate ideas. “I think it’s not right to use ChatGPT to write your work because that’s not what you came to university for,” he said.
This problem goes beyond high school and university students. Academic journals are struggling to cope with the huge influx of AI-generated scientific papers. The publication of the book is also not awaited, with a startup planning to bring out 8,000 AI-written books a year. “To write is to think, to think is to write, and when we remove that process, what does it mean for thinking?” asked Leitzinger. rss
प्रतिक्रिया दिनुहोस्