Getting the Virtual Assistant to Write an Essay: Why it is Good for Students, not the Essay Mills? Comment on Thomas Lancaster, An Empirical Researcher and Professor Dan Gillmor,

Students have been able to hire third parties to write their papers through essay mills in the past, and others do not agree with that. Thomas Lancaster, a computer scientist and academicintegrity researcher at Imperial College London, said that it didn’t add much to the function that students already had.

The end of an essay is becoming an assignment for education according to someone who studies law, innovation and society at a UK university. Dan Gillmor, a journalism scholar at Arizona State University in Tempe, told newspaper The Guardian that he had fed ChatGPT a homework question that he often assigns his students — and the article it produced in response would have earned a student a good grade.

The virtual assistant is an emerging tech, but it has limitations. Humans created the chatgtp. OpenAI has trained the tool using a large dataset of real human conversations.

GPT-4 can be more like a computer than a cold one since it’s almost like a collaboration. It doesn’t run off down a rabbit hole as much as GPT-1 did, so it’s so good. I don’t think essay assessment is relevant anymore.

What AI can tell us about education and research integrity? An interactive survey of the OpenAI Bot and how it might change the perception of the public

Nature wants to discover the extent of concerns about the impact of artificial-intelligence tools on education and research integrity, and how research institutions are dealing with them. Take our poll here.

“Despite the words ‘artificial intelligence’ being thrown about, really, these systems don’t have intelligence in the way we might think about as humans,” he says. They are trained to see patterns of words that they have seen before.

How many people use the Chatbot will dictate how necessary that will be. More than one million people tried it out in its first week. But although the current version, which OpenAI calls a “research preview”, is available at no cost, it’s unlikely to be free forever, and some students might baulk at the idea of paying.

She’s hopeful that education providers will adapt. There is a panic around new technology. “It’s the responsibility of academics to have a healthy amount of distrust — but I don’t feel like this is an insurmountable challenge.”

When I was asked to write about this week’s newsletter, my first thought was to ask the chat room about what came up. It’s what I’ve been doing with emails, recipes, and LinkedIn posts all week. Productivity is way down, but sassy limericks about Elon Musk are up 1000 percent.

I asked the bot to write a column about itself in the style of Steven Levy, but the results weren’t great. The commentary was generic and didn’t really capture Steven’s voice. As I wrote last week, it was fluent, but not entirely convincing. But it did get me thinking: Would I have gotten away with it? And what systems could catch people using AI for things they really shouldn’t, whether that’s work emails or college essays?

I talked to a professor of technology and regulation at the Oxford Internet Institute who talked about transparency and accountability and how it can be built into an app. I asked what that might look like.

What Do We Need to Know about Artificial Intelligence? Sandra Wachter discusses how the game is going to become a cat-and-mouse

The game will become a cat-and-mouse one according to Sandra Wachter. The tech is maybe not yet good enough to fool me as a person who teaches law, but it may be good enough to convince somebody who is not in that area. I wonder if technology will get better over time to be able to trick me. We may need technical tools to make sure what we are seeing is real, the same way we use deepfakes and detecting edited photos.

That seems inherently harder to do for text than it would be for deepfaked imagery, because there are fewer artifacts and telltale signs. Perhaps any reliable solution may need to be built by the company that’s generating the text in the first place.

You do need to have buy-in from whoever is creating that tool. If I offer services to students, I might not be a company that will submit to that. And there might be a situation where even if you do put watermarks on, they’re removable. Very tech-savvy groups will probably find a way. But there is an actual tech tool [built with OpenAI’s input] that allows you to detect whether output is artificially created.

A couple of things. I believe whoever is creating those tools puts a watermark in place. The EU’s proposed AI Act deals with transparency and makes it clear that you should always be aware when a fake bot is being used. But companies might not want to do that, and maybe the watermarks can be removed. It’s about using independent tools to look at artificial intelligence output. And in education, we have to be more creative about how we assess students and how we write papers: What kind of questions can we ask that are less easily fakeable? The combination of tech and human oversight helps curb the disruption.

OpenAI’s text-based system, which was released to the public last month, inspired some educators to sound the alarm about the potential for such systems to transform academics for better and worse.

The tool has been a huge success among his students and it’s use is to cheat by plagiarizing the other’s work, he told NPR.

“You can paste in entire academic papers and ask it to summarize it. He said that you can get it to find an error in your code and correct it for you. He said it was stunning because he thinks we are not getting our heads around.

Confidence in AI Language Models: Detecting “Fake” Phenomena in a Data Scientist’s Experiment

It lies with confidence, too. Despite its authoritative tone, there have been instances in which ChatGPT won’t tell you when it doesn’t have the answer.

That’s what Teresa Kubacka, a data scientist based in Zurich, Switzerland, found when she experimented with the language model. She used the tool to ask about a made up physical phenomenon.

“I deliberately asked it about something that I thought that I know doesn’t exist so that they can judge whether it actually also has the notion of what exists and what doesn’t exist,” she said.

ChatGPT produced an answer so specific and plausible sounding, backed with citations, she said, that she had to investigate whether the fake phenomenon, “a cycloidal inverted electromagnon,” was actually real.

When she looked closer, the alleged source material was also bogus, she said. The titles of the publications that were supposedly authored by the physics experts listed were non-existent, she said.

“This is where it becomes kind of dangerous,” Kubacka said. “If you can’t trust the references, it erodes the trust in citing science, and it’s one of the reasons for that,” she said.

“There are many questions that you can ask and it’ll give you a very nice sounding answer that’s just dead wrong,” said Oren Etzioni, who ran the research nonprofit until recently. “And, of course, that’s a problem if you don’t carefully verify or corroborate its facts.”

Users experimenting with the free preview of the chatbot are warned before testing the tool that ChatGPT “may occasionally generate incorrect or misleading information,” harmful instructions or biased content.

Sam Altman, the CEO of Openai, said this month that it would be a mistake to depend on the tool for anything important in its current iteration. “It’s a preview of progress,” he tweeted.

The failings of another AI language model unveiled by Meta last month led to its shutdown. The company withdrew its demo for a tool meant to help scientists only three days after it was encouraged by them to try it out.

Similarly, Etzioni says ChatGPT doesn’t produce good science. For all its flaws, though, he sees ChatGPT’s public debut as a positive. He sees this as a moment for peer review.

“ChatGPT is just a few days old, I like to say,” said Etzioni, who remains at the AI institute as a board member and advisor. It’s giving us a chance to comprehend what he can and cannot do and to begin the conversations of “What are we going to do about it?”

Is Artificial Intelligence “Security by Obscurity” Enough? The New York City Department of Education doesn’t like fallible AI

The alternative, which he describes as “security by obscurity,” won’t help improve fallible AI, he said. “What if we hide the problems? Will that be a recipe for solving them? It hasn’t worked out in the world of software.

The New York City Department of Education doesn’t like the idea of the Artificial Intelligence tool harming their students’ education.

The ban was due to the potential of negative impacts on student learning, and concerns regarding the safety and accuracy of content, according to a spokesman for the department.

“While the tool may be able to provide quick and easy answers to questions, it does not build critical-thinking and problem-solving skills, which are essential for academic and lifelong success,” said Lyle.

But such adaptations will take time, and it’s likely that other education systems will ban AI-generated writing in the near future as well. Already some online platforms — like coding Q&A site Stack Overflow — have banned ChatGPT overs fear the tool will pollute the accuracy of their sites.