4 ms·

> I'm sure LLMs can augment learning in some settings, esp in higher ed LLMs are great explainers of known theory. They can adapt to the level of the user and

> I'm sure LLMs can augment learning in some settings, esp in higher ed LLMs are great explainers of known theory. They can adapt to the level of the user and illustrate with concrete examples. They have infinite patience, there is no pressure.

eropple 3y ago
> LLMs are great explainers of known theory. When they don't lie. When they don't make up citations that don't exist. I think GPT-4 is moderately useful for software development, and I use it daily, but I have to check even very minor things, and having ~25 years of programming experience means I can do that intuitively. A kid doesn't have that.
- justrealist 3y ago
  > When they don't lie. When they don't make up citations that don't exist. I think this will be close to 0 of a problem when explaining to a HS biology student something like, what a mitochondria does or what mitosis is. It only fails (increasingly rarely) when you push the boundaries of human knowledge.
  - eropple 3y ago
    That assumes that the asker doesn't then ask follow-up questions that do probe beyond the could've-been-a-Wikipedia-page starting point. And I don't know about you, but how `structlog` should be configured had better not be "the boundaries of human knowledge". As I experienced yesterday evening, GPT-4 doesn't even do that right without human assistance. LLMs are useful tools. They are dramatically less useful if you can't detect bullshit. By definition, a student is poorly equipped to do so, and moreso if allowed to atrophy in the area of research capacity because they can just ask an LLM. (A pocket calculator is a good analogy--life carries much less friction when you can efficiently do arithmetic and basic algebra in your head, because the affordances of dragging out a calculator to know how to minimize the change you get back are bad.)
    - justrealist 3y ago
      GPT4 with no tuning produces less bullshit than 99% of teachers.
obscurette 3y ago
I don't think it can. I have some experience in teaching and one of the worst issues I initially had was that you can't believe how messed the knowledge can be in heads of the kids. They literally mess everything – topics, words, culture, personal experience. Everything. To teach kids effectively you have to have a lot of background knowledge – from their family background to the info from teacher in previous class and you have to adapt constantly. People who are talking about automation of education are grown up people who think that all people think structurally and just lack the specific knowledge. Kids actually don't do it.

eropple 3y ago

> LLMs are great explainers of known theory. When they don't lie. When they don't make up citations that don't exist. I think GPT-4 is moderately useful for software development, and I use it daily, but I have to check even very minor things, and having ~25 years of programming experience means I can do that intuitively. A kid doesn't have that.

justrealist 3y ago
> When they don't lie. When they don't make up citations that don't exist. I think this will be close to 0 of a problem when explaining to a HS biology student something like, what a mitochondria does or what mitosis is. It only fails (increasingly rarely) when you push the boundaries of human knowledge.
- eropple 3y ago
  That assumes that the asker doesn't then ask follow-up questions that do probe beyond the could've-been-a-Wikipedia-page starting point. And I don't know about you, but how `structlog` should be configured had better not be "the boundaries of human knowledge". As I experienced yesterday evening, GPT-4 doesn't even do that right without human assistance. LLMs are useful tools. They are dramatically less useful if you can't detect bullshit. By definition, a student is poorly equipped to do so, and moreso if allowed to atrophy in the area of research capacity because they can just ask an LLM. (A pocket calculator is a good analogy--life carries much less friction when you can efficiently do arithmetic and basic algebra in your head, because the affordances of dragging out a calculator to know how to minimize the change you get back are bad.)
  - justrealist 3y ago
    GPT4 with no tuning produces less bullshit than 99% of teachers.

obscurette 3y ago

I don't think it can. I have some experience in teaching and one of the worst issues I initially had was that you can't believe how messed the knowledge can be in heads of the kids. They literally mess everything – topics, words, culture, personal experience. Everything. To teach kids effectively you have to have a lot of background knowledge – from their family background to the info from teacher in previous class and you have to adapt constantly. People who are talking about automation of education are grown up people who think that all people think structurally and just lack the specific knowledge. Kids actually don't do it.