5 ms·

> ChatGPT is far and away the best tutor I have ever had. > Regardless I have learnt things who cares what we learn is true as long as we learnt something?

iwontberude 3y ago
They alluded in their past comment that human teachers make errors too which students can identify. So perhaps if students don't implicitly trust human tutors, then so too can they corroborate ChatGPT against reality and solidify their understanding.
- blibble 3y ago
  I don't know about where you're from but in my country to teach requires several years of qualifications, assessment and continuing observation by an independent regulator and there are consequences if you're caught teaching rubbish not to say they are perfect, but there is some level of quality control meanwhile ChatGPT just bullshits endlessly with no possible way to punish OpenAI for it
  - MeImCounting 3y ago
    I think perhaps you had a bad experience with GPT at some point or didnt ask it to provide sources that you then read through. Either way it is far more reliable than you seem to believe.
    - CamperBob2 3y ago
      It's also getting better, while other resources aren't, and won't.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    I've just listened to the latest Numberphile podcast, and one of many surprising anecdotes from Donald Knuth was that as a kid he'd been disillusioned by maths when he "proved" that 1=0 and his teacher couldn't find the mistake. > meanwhile ChatGPT just bullshits endlessly with no possible way to punish OpenAI for it Sure there are, and more importantly there's also ways to "punish" the models themselves — that's what the "thumbs down" and "regenerate response" buttons in the chat UI are for.
  - scrps 3y ago
    I'll join you in being downvoted. Human teachers can be audited without advanced knowledge in maths, computer science, and information theory to discover what went wrong. Human teachers can be held accountable. A Human teacher has limited scale thus limited damage over bad information with more safeguards than "Big Corp promises not to be bad" A human teacher can realize their own mistakes. Human teachers have complex incentive structures that can modify their behavior. Many humans (even ones with technical training) tend to see computers as infailible in first principals of math and carry that forward to deep learning which is where the math becomes tough to audit, couple that with LLMs affinity for overcoming the uncanny valley enough to seem like a rational human actor because of the datasets being used and you have "magic". This is before you even add financial incentive. Not saying these issues in deep learning can't be tackled but the disengenous hype-train and the downvoting because people point out flaws with the new internet ATM is wearing thin.
hereme888 3y ago
Idk how you're promoting, but hallucinations are rare for me, even at graduate-level material. There's a reason GPT-4 scores so highly on advanced exams like the USMLE.
- blibble 3y ago
  > There's a reason GPT-4 scores so highly on advanced exams like the USMLE. yes, it's called overfitting
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - cle 3y ago
    There are entire industries devoted to helping humans overfit on standardized tests. Humans love to overfit, it's often easy and faster to get what you want--which in the case of education, is usually credentials, not knowledge.
    - godelski 3y ago
      > Humans love to overfit, it's often easy and faster to get what you want The problem is Goodhart's. Tests aren't used to measure your ability to overfit them, but to measure your general knowledge. Obviously the latter is exceptionally difficult to measure so we settle for an easier metric. The problem comes from believing that the measurement well aligns with the thing we set out to measure. The same is for humans as is for machines and it is why it is insane to say something like "look, GPT did well on the BAR exam, it should be able to practice law." Because we explicitly do not want a legal system that follows the letter of the law (rather spirit of the law) and it's clear which one GPT would do. Yes, there's a problem that humans go this way too, but it's something we can solve if we are willing to admit the fuzziness of our metrics.
- godelski 3y ago
  > hallucinations are rare for me, even at graduate-level material. How do you know? If you're using it as a tutor you're using it to get knowledge that you don't know. Sure, it doesn't get things that are obviously (to you) wrong, but what about subtle things? At the graduate level subtly dominates and many concepts are counter intuitive or non-obvious in the first place (otherwise they wouldn't be expert knowledge).
gjstein 3y ago
This is a cynical take on what I think is a meaningful benefit that the above commenter is talking about. If you use ChatGPT to learn concepts and approach it with the caveat that you should make sure you understand what you are trying to learn (something that helps to verify that what is being presented to you by the system is "accurate"), it's a fantastic resource. That isn't to say it's true for learning all things, but I'm generally impressed and optimistic for ChatGPT to be as valuable a teaching/learning resource as any other I might find on the web.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
squidbeak 3y ago
Human teachers aren't omniscient, but often have absolute authority over their pupils. This flaw isn't unique to AI.
- godelski 3y ago
  I have more confidence in a teacher, especially in niche subjects. One of the big reasons why is that I can ask a teacher a question, they will infer what I am trying to ask, and not easily flip flop. Because a teacher has confidence and GPT doesn't. A teacher will even find their own mistakes without prompting (though of course, everyone needs it sometimes. Just a teacher won't say that a kilogram of feathers and a pound of bricks weigh the same and then explain how 1 kg is 2.54 lbs). Sure, no system is perfect, but not all imperfections are equal, and I'm tired of pretending like they are.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    > Sure, no system is perfect, but not all imperfections are equal, and I'm tired of pretending like they are. I think this is the actual issue, rather than the other specifics you raise — my anecdote of human mistakes includes having a 44kHz/16-bit audio recording of a whole university lecture where the lecturer insisted that nobody can record mocap joint positions for a mere dozen joints at a mere 24Hz/8-bit for more than a few minutes because that is too much data to store, and it was their confidence that kept them from updating. But, back to the point. Every instance of any specific AI release (GPT or LLM or whatever else) are identical; errors are therefore necessarily correlated. Humans get an advantage from our imperfections being un-equal, we benefit from the wisdom of the crowd (with conditions) and second opinions are meaningfully independent (again with conditions), but not so for any specific AI. (Possible twist: Mixture of Experts).
    - godelski 3y ago
      That's not true even before mixture of experts because the systems are stochastic. They are only identical if we were to always initialize with the same starting seed and rng_state.
CamperBob2 3y ago
Very good. Now apply that healthy skepticism to the contexts where you should have been applying it in the past but haven't been, from Stack Overflow to Wikipedia to your high school and college teachers to the evening news.

iwontberude 3y ago

They alluded in their past comment that human teachers make errors too which students can identify. So perhaps if students don't implicitly trust human tutors, then so too can they corroborate ChatGPT against reality and solidify their understanding.

blibble 3y ago
I don't know about where you're from but in my country to teach requires several years of qualifications, assessment and continuing observation by an independent regulator and there are consequences if you're caught teaching rubbish not to say they are perfect, but there is some level of quality control meanwhile ChatGPT just bullshits endlessly with no possible way to punish OpenAI for it
- MeImCounting 3y ago
  I think perhaps you had a bad experience with GPT at some point or didnt ask it to provide sources that you then read through. Either way it is far more reliable than you seem to believe.
  - CamperBob2 3y ago
    It's also getting better, while other resources aren't, and won't.
- ben_w 3y ago
  I've just listened to the latest Numberphile podcast, and one of many surprising anecdotes from Donald Knuth was that as a kid he'd been disillusioned by maths when he "proved" that 1=0 and his teacher couldn't find the mistake. > meanwhile ChatGPT just bullshits endlessly with no possible way to punish OpenAI for it Sure there are, and more importantly there's also ways to "punish" the models themselves — that's what the "thumbs down" and "regenerate response" buttons in the chat UI are for.
- scrps 3y ago
  I'll join you in being downvoted. Human teachers can be audited without advanced knowledge in maths, computer science, and information theory to discover what went wrong. Human teachers can be held accountable. A Human teacher has limited scale thus limited damage over bad information with more safeguards than "Big Corp promises not to be bad" A human teacher can realize their own mistakes. Human teachers have complex incentive structures that can modify their behavior. Many humans (even ones with technical training) tend to see computers as infailible in first principals of math and carry that forward to deep learning which is where the math becomes tough to audit, couple that with LLMs affinity for overcoming the uncanny valley enough to seem like a rational human actor because of the datasets being used and you have "magic". This is before you even add financial incentive. Not saying these issues in deep learning can't be tackled but the disengenous hype-train and the downvoting because people point out flaws with the new internet ATM is wearing thin.

hereme888 3y ago

Idk how you're promoting, but hallucinations are rare for me, even at graduate-level material. There's a reason GPT-4 scores so highly on advanced exams like the USMLE.

blibble 3y ago
> There's a reason GPT-4 scores so highly on advanced exams like the USMLE. yes, it's called overfitting
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- cle 3y ago
  There are entire industries devoted to helping humans overfit on standardized tests. Humans love to overfit, it's often easy and faster to get what you want--which in the case of education, is usually credentials, not knowledge.
  - godelski 3y ago
    > Humans love to overfit, it's often easy and faster to get what you want The problem is Goodhart's. Tests aren't used to measure your ability to overfit them, but to measure your general knowledge. Obviously the latter is exceptionally difficult to measure so we settle for an easier metric. The problem comes from believing that the measurement well aligns with the thing we set out to measure. The same is for humans as is for machines and it is why it is insane to say something like "look, GPT did well on the BAR exam, it should be able to practice law." Because we explicitly do not want a legal system that follows the letter of the law (rather spirit of the law) and it's clear which one GPT would do. Yes, there's a problem that humans go this way too, but it's something we can solve if we are willing to admit the fuzziness of our metrics.
godelski 3y ago
> hallucinations are rare for me, even at graduate-level material. How do you know? If you're using it as a tutor you're using it to get knowledge that you don't know. Sure, it doesn't get things that are obviously (to you) wrong, but what about subtle things? At the graduate level subtly dominates and many concepts are counter intuitive or non-obvious in the first place (otherwise they wouldn't be expert knowledge).

gjstein 3y ago

This is a cynical take on what I think is a meaningful benefit that the above commenter is talking about. If you use ChatGPT to learn concepts and approach it with the caveat that you should make sure you understand what you are trying to learn (something that helps to verify that what is being presented to you by the system is "accurate"), it's a fantastic resource. That isn't to say it's true for learning all things, but I'm generally impressed and optimistic for ChatGPT to be as valuable a teaching/learning resource as any other I might find on the web.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

squidbeak 3y ago

Human teachers aren't omniscient, but often have absolute authority over their pupils. This flaw isn't unique to AI.

godelski 3y ago
I have more confidence in a teacher, especially in niche subjects. One of the big reasons why is that I can ask a teacher a question, they will infer what I am trying to ask, and not easily flip flop. Because a teacher has confidence and GPT doesn't. A teacher will even find their own mistakes without prompting (though of course, everyone needs it sometimes. Just a teacher won't say that a kilogram of feathers and a pound of bricks weigh the same and then explain how 1 kg is 2.54 lbs). Sure, no system is perfect, but not all imperfections are equal, and I'm tired of pretending like they are.
- ben_w 3y ago
  > Sure, no system is perfect, but not all imperfections are equal, and I'm tired of pretending like they are. I think this is the actual issue, rather than the other specifics you raise — my anecdote of human mistakes includes having a 44kHz/16-bit audio recording of a whole university lecture where the lecturer insisted that nobody can record mocap joint positions for a mere dozen joints at a mere 24Hz/8-bit for more than a few minutes because that is too much data to store, and it was their confidence that kept them from updating. But, back to the point. Every instance of any specific AI release (GPT or LLM or whatever else) are identical; errors are therefore necessarily correlated. Humans get an advantage from our imperfections being un-equal, we benefit from the wisdom of the crowd (with conditions) and second opinions are meaningfully independent (again with conditions), but not so for any specific AI. (Possible twist: Mixture of Experts).
  - godelski 3y ago
    That's not true even before mixture of experts because the systems are stochastic. They are only identical if we were to always initialize with the same starting seed and rng_state.

CamperBob2 3y ago

Very good. Now apply that healthy skepticism to the contexts where you should have been applying it in the past but haven't been, from Stack Overflow to Wikipedia to your high school and college teachers to the evening news.