I think anyone with an eye for what effort really looks like can probably figure out the difference between ChatGPT and a human being’s writing. The AI tool can be used as a cheating device that, when the user has enough practice and knows precisely how to prompt a decent essay, can generate (I refrain to say that it can really write) a decent essay. That said, it can easily help students edit papers they may have honestly written as well, saving time and reducing stress for many– especially those with heavier workloads. Don’t get me wrong, the art and practice of manually editing (among other tasks) is still important to understand and be able to do, but at a certain point where one has already learned how it works the manual effort is sometimes unnecessary. So it seems that Katherine Schulten poses a valid question as the title of her New York Times opinion piece, How Should Schools Respond to ChatGPT? She also poses several other important questions that not only should educators be taking into account, but their students as well.

• Have you experimented with ChatGPT, whether in school or on your own? What did you think? How promising or useful do you think it is? Why?

I’ve experimented with ChatGPT, and it really could be an extremely useful tool when it’s used with the right intent. Like I said before, it can be used to skip learning things, or it can be used as an aide to things already learned. So, teachers can potentially use ChatGPT to have something generating work for students doing better on certain topics, while they help struggling students understand what’s being taught. Or maybe how the teacher phrases things might not click for some students– in this case, maybe the student can ask the AI for an explanation of some sort and get started on starting to understand things a bit better. No class is going to have a bunch of students that learn exactly the same way or at the same pace. ChatGPT could potentially help with that.

• Why do you think many educators are worried about it? The New York City school system, for instance, has blocked access to the program for fear of “negative impacts on student learning, and concerns regarding the safety and accuracy of content.” Do you agree? What “negative impacts” can you imagine? What, if anything, worries you about this tool?

Educators seem to be more concerned about cheating than they are about ChatGPT, but the bot is just the means through which that cheating might occur. Sure, some healthy boundaries are entirely necessary to deter dishonesty in academics, and they’re also necessary to ensure that there is a legitimate measure on whether or not students are actually learning the content being taught (which means math being done manually or in-class review of their, there, and they’re). So I don’t entirely think blocking ChatGPT is the best idea, but it’s not the worst either. I think a better solution might be to create in-class, interactive, and tech-free lessons to keep students engaged when they are initially learning content. Having no boundaries on ChatGPT might create a lazy work ethic and a lack of learning content (but not a total lack of learning anything, if I’m honest– users would still learn how to use AI).

• This article argues that ChatGPT’s potential as an educational tool outweighs its risks. How do you feel? Should teachers “thoughtfully embrace” this technology? If so, what could that look like? For example, how would you imagine using the chatbot on an upcoming assignment in a way that supports your learning?

Like I’ve said before, technology like this isn’t inherently bad. As far as I’m concerned, God created everything to be good but things ended up distorted (or in other words, bad) because of sin (or how we as human beings handled things). Nothing is inherently bad, it’s just distorted when it’s dealt with the wrong ways. The case is similar with ChatGPT: when we thoughtfully and intentionally approach its use, it can be a great help and support to how we teach or learn.

• Some educators say the threat of widespread student cheating means the end of classroom practices such as assigning homework, take-home tests and essays. Do you agree? Or, do you think those activities can be reimagined to incorporate the use of chatbots? If so, would that be a good thing? Why or why not?

I would somewhat agree, but frankly that’s something that will reflect in assignments done and tests taken in class without the use of any technology. This is why having a healthy balance of technology use and lack thereof is important to modern pedagogies. Allowing the use of it will allow students to not only learn but satisfy the (often subconsciously) perceived need and (in theory) make aptly designed in-class tech-free activities more interesting and engaging.

In a previous blog post, I discussed how humans could weaponize AI writing to do unethical things, that it isn’t inherently unethical, but Jonathon’s topic for today’s pathfinding session highlights how AI writing is inherently unethical.

AI perpetuates the norms. It is a representation of the data that is put into it, but what if that data is racist and misogynistic? Does that make AI unethical; I would say so.

I have previously described that the data set put into the artificial intelligence machine functions as the brain of that machine. If the data is unethical, the machine is unethical.

Similar to how AI writers perpetuate and exacerbate social issues like racism or misogyny, it also perpetuates and exacerbates problems in our education system, such as cheating and plagiarism.

These problems have been woven into the fabric of our society for as long as their institutions have. AI writing did not create a cheating epidemic; it has existed since our education system was implemented. The AI machine wasn’t created to be racist or misogynistic; it is a reflection of our society.

The articles discussed the inevitable inclusion of ChatGPT in school systems, which we’ve also touched upon in the classroom. Again, fear has gotten the best of some of us and it has tricked us to believe these AI systems are capable of everything and anything. While that may be true in the future (who knows, right?), in this present day, we are still living in the transitional period that I’ve also mentioned previously.

There are two points of view in the classroom though. We can’t forget the students and how they view these systems. They aren’t seeing it as robots taking over the world, they’re most likely seeing it as robots helping them with their chores. Obviously, their curiosity will push them to go ahead and try it. So, why should we halt that curiosity? Isn’t that what learning is?

If we punish them for using these systems, it’ll only push them to use it even more. But, if they have some sort of guidance while learning about these systems, they might use them as a more productive way to learn.

If we think about it, this kind of already happened when the internet was becoming popular. Robots were taking over back then too, yet here we are – doing our homework and learning from other voices and perspectives readily available to us thanks to the internet. AI is just a condensed and advanced version of the internet.

Looking back to our activity in class last week, we established that ChatGPT produces “better” work when the prompt or question is specific and direct. However, it can still miss the mark and may not include some points – that’s where we come in and edit. We go in and strengthen its points with our voices, real-life evidence, and pose new questions for readers to think further and encourage them to learn for themselves.

All in all, I think the panic surrounding AI in schools is pretty useless. It’s obvious we are able to detect what’s human and what’s not. We shouldn’t punish them for using what they’ve known all their lives. They’ve learned to do research through the internet and this is almost the same process. Traditionally, we ask the internet questions and sift through what we want to learn. AI systems gives us what we want to learn, but that doesn’t mean they give us everything. It still requires work and research from us. So, I think the schools are fine if they would just focus on the learning aspect of it all instead of jumping to the punishment aspect of it.

The idea of teachers having mixed views on AI chatbots, like ChatGPT does not surprise me. We haver those teachers who like new fresh ideas when it comes to planning lessons and engaging their students, but then their are some teachers who think the way things have been done have produced great results, so why fix something that isn’t broken. No way is right or wrong, all that matters is helping students to understanding the subject, and helping them they best way the teacher can to retain the information. If only it were that simple.

The one idea all teachers share when dealing with the education world today is that every student learns differently. Some may learn a bit easier than other, and some may need a few tries to hit a goal or target, either way a great teacher will get the job done, and that’s what makes them awesome!

I feel AI chatbots like ChatGPT can offer CONFIDENCE in the classroom if used correctly. With it being so downloaded with information on all subjects and able to do anything just about it can serve as a great learning tool to make students feel a bit more confident with the work they produce. I know teachers would hate for students to plagiarize things, and I personally wouldn’t agree with this either, but I you teach the uses of ChatGPT to students that shows them what they can find on it and ways it can help to “improve” their work, it could really bring better marks for students and give them a positive attitude towards school.

I remember I use to HATE history in high school. I even tried skipping the class at times ( which was impossible in a small private schools with nuns who knew your ever move), but I just wanted to be anywhere but there, because I always felt no matter how hard I studied it was no way I could possibly retain all of the information about past wars, politics, and dates mixed with important people blah blah blah, all for one test! And again I’ve always been a big reader because I learned early on if I read I retain the information faster , but it just never worked for that class and the C’s really made me unmotivated in that subject. I think if I had ChatGPT it would have really helped me to create better papers because I could pull up speeches, dates and full blown war accounts for soldiers who probably were there all in one place on demand, and it would have helped me to produce better work.

If the right teacher introduces ChatGPT to their students as a way to help them, and show students that you are trusting them to be responsible when it comes to integrity within the work, this could really change attitudes that students have early on towards school. A lot of time students get discouraged in subjects they may see others excelling in, but these AI tools can really bring them confidence in the work they produce and in return give them better grades.

When I first heard about chatGPT, well seen the TikTok, I knew this would have a negative impact on students in school. Well actually my first thought was “why didn’t I see this before I finished all of my final assignments” but you get the point. I knew that teachers and administrators would be in the position of trying to catch students using this tool for their writing assignments. it gives students the “easy way out” when doing writing assignments. It also poses the question “what are our students really learning”. In the article it said that chatGPT could mess with the teachers lesson plans, which is very true. Before things like chatGPT teachers would be able to distinguish each students writing styles. They would be able to know if that student produced the writing or not. With having chatGPT teachers are blindsided from the start, how would they know their writing style if chatGPT is being used from the start.

like I’ve stated before I like this as a tool to help those that may need a jump start to their writing but not as something that is being used to produced every single part of writing. I don’t like the idea of AI being used in school or for any school assignments whatsoever because it will become a disservice to our students. School isn’t about just getting assignments done but about learning through assignments.

In the TedTalk when Joy Buolamwini mentions about AI face recognition and how it recognizes other faces and not hers, I liked that she mentioned that it was a flaw our creation. Even when she mentions about the police department, it is kind of scary in my opinion. If AI can only recognize certain people and not all how is the police Department using this software a great idea? How could this really be trusted? Should it be trusted? AI is something that is very intriguing but also terrifying at the same time. I can see it being something that will eventually take over in so many areas. Is that something we really want??

So, I used Chat GPT a few times in the last two weeks to test it out and see what its capabilities are. At first glance, it seemed like it was capable of producing some decent looking material. It was capable of mimicking human writing enough to make some bare minimum short stories. I had it produce episode scripts of known television shows and some original short stories of its own. But while it was capable of at least making some decent episode synopses, it quickly became clear to me that Chat GPT is the worst possible option for a pedagogical tool.

Chat GPT should not be allowed to be used in schools. Obviously, students shouldn’t use it to cheat, but I’m going to go beyond that point. When reading NYT article How Should Schools Respond to ChatGPT? by Katherine Schulten, I really thought about how ChatGPT merely existing has been causing so much worry for school staff and faculty. The article quotes Don’t Ban ChatGPT in Schools. Teach With It. by Kevin Roose in order to start a series of questions for student readers to answer. Kevin’s perspective is that ChatGPT shouldn’t be banned in schools but instead should be taught in classes to inspire student creativity and prepare students to work with AI as adults. While I can see where his perspective is coming from, I honestly do not see the pros outweighing the cons.

Last week, during the last pathfinder presentation we all entered poem prompts into Chat GPT and presented the results. While most were fairly harmless, their was the one about the tragic imperialism and occupation of Palestinians by Israel. Chat GPT was able to produce a poem that disconcertingly mimicked an emotional writing prose. The poem was heartful, the writing was strong, and the structure was actually great.

This is a disturbing issue.

ChatGPT being able to mimic human writing so well is one thing. But for it to produce such a realistic and motivating poem about real-life imperialism and occupation and ethnic-cleansing, for artificial intelligence to be the one producing a poem that could be passed off as an original work, is so unethical and disrespectful. ChatGPT making great and likeable material is its own discourse. ChatGPT mimicking human tragedy like this presents a potentially exploitative future in writing if AI writing is ever allowed to be passed as original.

This course focuses on the human nature of writing. How we as humans have such a uniqueness, that even if we tried to remove it, finds its way into our artistic creations. It could be the idiosyncrasies in the way we write or the way our hands move on their own when painting, the crack in our voice when we are confessing our love, the rhetoric we use in speeches we create or our experiences that unknowingly slip into our narratives. What a wonderfully human phenomenon. However, one more thing slips past no matter how much we fight it, Bias. Commentary on a social issue, the harsh critique a work of a younger or woman author, or the writings of a political opponent. Biases slip past us unconsciously in writing and most definitely in our AI.

AI is a creation of man, and no matter how much we as humans attempt to detach ourselves from it our Biases they do slip in. Joy Buolamwini’s Ted Talk on bias in algorithm sheds light on the way “Algorithmic bias can also lead to exclusionary experiences and discriminatory practices.” mentioning that AI facial recognition software cannot recognize her face but has no issue recognizing her peers of a lighter complexion and even masks. In spite of this she made a point to stay positive and mention that it is a flaw of our own creation and there are many ways we can combat this.

She makes the mention of police departments using unregulated AI networks, that have not been audited for accuracy. Which is terrifying. If eye witness testimony can’t be trusted, how can we trust software that can’t accurately and without bias recognize a variety of faces. Imagine the amount innocent people who would be accused of crimes they did not commit due to faulty algorithms. One specific phrase stuck out to me “We now have the opportunity to unlock even greater equality if we make social change a priority and not an afterthought.” Even when facing such a unfathomable social issue we can take steps in correcting them. AI is not naturally occurring, we create it, and evolve it. So together we can push it to a version of itself where it can be an inclusive software.

I want to end this portion of this blog post with a few lines from my all time favorite poem. Desiderata by Max Ehrmann .

Exercise caution in your business affairs, for the world is full of trickery. But let this not blind you to what virtue there is; many persons strive for high ideals, and everywhere life is full of heroism.

AI in Education

Having no interesting in the field of pedagogy, I agree with the decision of some schools that have already banned ChatGPT from their servers to prevent students from what they would consider “cheating”. However, I commend the intentions of Katherine Schulten article Lesson Plan: Teaching and Learning in the Era of ChatGPT. If you scroll through my blog, you’ll find it more than a few negative comment of the effects of AI on education. Though she gives positive uses of AI the classroom. She has created lesson plans on how to effectively inform students on chatbots. Where there’s a will there’s a way. Students will find methods of using AI and incorporating them into their work. whether using it to “cheat” or augment their work they must be made aware of the potential misuses. This begins in the classrooms.

As a writer and a future English teacher, this topic is important to me. Tonight I’ll be presenting on how teaching is effected by ChatGPT in particular.

Here is a link to a short slideshow

Response to: “How Should Schools Respond to ChatGPT”:

I don’t really know if banning ChatGPT is going to do anything but motivate students to using it in a more determined fashion. Teenage rebellion is a force to be measured with, and to combat it is a seemingly futile challenge. Rather, I think that those who are truly caring of the integrity of self-expression, need to find creative ways to steer classwork elsewhere.

I know that I come from an era where technology wasn’t even present in a classroom. It really wasn’t that long ago, less than ten years easily. Hand written was the way to go before my Junior year of high school, which was 2014-2015. Perhaps it should even be beneficial to create assignments that are more opinionated, which I am all for, the sort of thing that ChatGPT will not engage in because it is so conscious about appeasing PC sensibilities.

Does it really have a place in the classroom? Actually, sure it does. We use it very engagingly in this one. I still think that the tool, in regards to submitting work that any of us, as students, sign our name on, is incredulously lame. Who am I to represent the majority, though? I’ve never been a super big convenience hound, I don’t really sniff the whole “smarter not harder” perspective.

The quote goes, if you can’t beat them, join them. This is us (educators and everyone else against AI systems) with our silent war of this ongoing funny business. But ironically now, we need to get down to business and discuss this arrising issue.

In the article, How Should Schools Respond to ChatGPT by Katherine Schulten, she gives a special shoutout to Kevin Roose. He argues that schools should consider the technology (ChatGPT) as a teaching aid. Obviously, less like the enemy. While it can be hard to find that in-between balance once you already hate something, Roose has a point. AI systems can be a good tool to give feedback and even teaching tools for teachers to use in their classroom. A teacher can demonstrate how a generic and boring essay is suppose too look like. Or better yet, how students should write their essays for state tests. I can see that being a semi positive approach. New York has blocked access for students to be able to use ChatGPT but that won’t stop them from using it when they are home, unfortunately.

In Katherine Schulten’s other article with the New York Times, Lesson Plan: Teaching and Learning in the Era of ChatGPT she further dives in just how this tool can be used in the classroom. She shares how to play with the tool, giving it a prompt, then having the students analyze it. Open the discussion in the classroom on the overall prompt, opinions, and thoughts. While like I mentioned before, that can be helpful. I think this can actually be really helpful in a school environment. Within the state and all the state testing, it’s almost feels like their is that pressure to get rid of the students voice in order to generate more essays that are “academically correct.” This tool can be helpful to aid students on writing those essays for their SAT’s and so on and so forth.

In my opinion, if we approach ChatGPT for what it is, which is basic. Maybe students won’t be as intrigued or maybe they will be. But with new systems vast approaching, if you can’t beat them, might as well join them.