“We’re sending kids to school to memorize facts that ChatGPT can retrieve in under a second.”
-
“We’re sending kids to school to memorize facts that ChatGPT can retrieve in under a second.”
Yeah worst of all, gym classes are making them run a mile that Uber can cover in less than a minute -
“We’re sending kids to school to memorize facts that ChatGPT can retrieve in under a second.”
Yeah worst of all, gym classes are making them run a mile that Uber can cover in less than a minute@stux they're even teaching you to, *gasp*, think critically!
-
@stux Boy, does this ever reflect how little these people know about actual humans. The skill of memorisation is one that we use our entire lives, and develops a brain with more capacity and better recall. What you're actually memorising doesn't matter. It's the skill of doing it that matters.
The skills involved in looking up "facts" and corroborating them as best you can are various and just as important. Asking "the drunk at the dull end of the bar" instead leads just there: to the corner of the bar. We should teach our children well. #factchecking
-
“We’re sending kids to school to memorize facts that ChatGPT can retrieve in under a second.”
Yeah worst of all, gym classes are making them run a mile that Uber can cover in less than a minute@stux there's also something wrong with your school if all the kids do is memorizing shit. Just sayin'...
-
“We’re sending kids to school to memorize facts that ChatGPT can retrieve in under a second.”
Yeah worst of all, gym classes are making them run a mile that Uber can cover in less than a minute@stux think of all the food they have to eat? We could simply throw that in the trash too.
-
@stux @Remittancegirl especially when you're surrounded by nonsense that's being reproduced at light speed.
@A_denie @stux @Remittancegirl
Yeah and the biggest lie in that whole scheme is that ChatGPT knows nothing about facts. It just produces plausible looking output. Any similarities with actual facts is being lucky. -
@A_denie @stux @Remittancegirl
Yeah and the biggest lie in that whole scheme is that ChatGPT knows nothing about facts. It just produces plausible looking output. Any similarities with actual facts is being lucky.@Turre @A_denie @stux @Remittancegirl Yeah, I've played around with some of these AI bots just to see what all the hype was about, and it's SHOCKINGLY easy to get them to confidently lie to you. Hell, I've seen lots of people use screenshots as evidence in discussions online, and it's all wrong.
-
This is your #source ? I ask because the text continues beyond that quoted statement.
@jerrej Nop, a screenshot from another comment somewhere
Not Twitter at least
so copy of a copy etc -
“We’re sending kids to school to memorize facts that ChatGPT can retrieve in under a second.”
Yeah worst of all, gym classes are making them run a mile that Uber can cover in less than a minute@stux "... that ChatGPT can plagerize, lie about, and generally just make shit up, but in under a second! Whoa!" Personally, this just tells me that we can start teaching philosophy to kids at a much earlier age. Have them memorize lines from a play, etc. Basically, we can teach these kids whatever we want now, and it can be the good stuff. It's getting our local school boards in line that's the issue. My local is having issues with enrollment of all things. This whole system needs an enema.
-
Contrary to traditionalists' claims, rote memorization does not "train" the brain in a useful way that transfers. In fact, it can detract from higher-order thinking, not to mention how it wastes limited instructional time. And much of what kids are forced to commit to memory in a bunch-o'-facts curriculum is soon forgotten: https://www.alfiekohn.org/blogs/fuhgeddaboudit/
Where A.I. does prove harmful is in bypassing thinking, reading, researching, and writing. That's where the gym-class analogy makes sense.
@alfiekohn I would assume having a large and diverse body of knowledge enables one to make connections that help solve problems, recognise patterns in structurally similar problems and transfer ideas into new solutions where they are needed. It's just a feeling/assumption that I have though. @stux
-
@stux Actually, more than knowing facts it is the ability to maintain more than a single idea in the brain at once.
It is impossible to make informed choices if you cannot remember what the options are.
@Remittancegirl @stux Yes, exactly this! Holding two opposing thoughts generally creates cognitive dissonance, so it should be incredibly important to help kids early to understand what that feeling is and how to think critically through it in order to hold those thoughts and then respond instead of react negatively. I like this idea a lot!
-
@jerrej Nop, a screenshot from another comment somewhere
Not Twitter at least
so copy of a copy etcSo no source tracing and no attribution makes the originally quoted statement kind of pointless and void, unless you just want to hook onto something that is supposedly on everyone's mind already? It wasn't on my mind at least. The historians of the future are doomed.
-
“We’re sending kids to school to memorize facts that ChatGPT can retrieve in under a second.”
Yeah worst of all, gym classes are making them run a mile that Uber can cover in less than a minute@stux I’m here for the nails hitting heads.
-
@Remittancegirl @stux "What you're actually memorising doesn't matter." is how we get abusive, bullshit-riddled schools completely detached from their stated purpose. What you're learning matters! And if you're actually learning, you shouldn't have to go out of your way to memorize.
@ariarhythmic @Remittancegirl @stux I think you're missing the point entirely.
nobody is saying it doesn't matter what schools TEACH. they're saying the learning process is what's important, not any particular fact a student might memorize.
-
“We’re sending kids to school to memorize facts that ChatGPT can retrieve in under a second.”
Yeah worst of all, gym classes are making them run a mile that Uber can cover in less than a minute@stux I realize this is not the point of the post but I've been saying for years that gym class should teach day-to-day physical stuff like riding bikes safely, lifting heavy things, using tools like shovels without wrecking your back, etc
Not to say sports an such should not be part of the curriculum ofc, but more emphasis on practical stuff would be a great thing by my count.
-
“We’re sending kids to school to memorize facts that ChatGPT can retrieve in under a second.”
Yeah worst of all, gym classes are making them run a mile that Uber can cover in less than a minute@stux That's an area where AI for sure can and will do some sincere damage.
We have to figure out a way to ensure that kids still actually learn things, otherwise we'll witness the horror of cognitive surrender at society scale.
-
@A_denie @stux @Remittancegirl
Yeah and the biggest lie in that whole scheme is that ChatGPT knows nothing about facts. It just produces plausible looking output. Any similarities with actual facts is being lucky.@Turre @A_denie @stux @Remittancegirl You're plain wrong, very naive and clearly clueless as to how LLMs are "trained" and here's why:
Any similarities with actual facts is to a very large degree _not_ related to being lucky.
"AI" companies feed a model a lot of data in a way that's not too unlike the lossy compression used to compress a track from a CD into a .mp3 file. An algorithm is then applied to create relations between the data points in the dataset ("tokens") and some basic weights are applied.
The next step is what "AI" companies call "training" which is in reality lots and lots of real people working minimum wage in poor countries who are tasked with asking questions in a script & then they evaluate the output according to a manual/instructions written by a handful of people in Silicon Valley.
You may want to look further into this and really think it through if you still don't get that how the weights are adjusted is, in fact, largely _not_ a matter of "luck" or chance. If the "AI" companies want their LLM to present a narrative when asked about a topic then they absolutely can and will make sure the model presents that narrative every time. Consider the implications as more and more people use LLMs like some kind of all-knowing ministry of truth.
-
@Turre @A_denie @stux @Remittancegirl You're plain wrong, very naive and clearly clueless as to how LLMs are "trained" and here's why:
Any similarities with actual facts is to a very large degree _not_ related to being lucky.
"AI" companies feed a model a lot of data in a way that's not too unlike the lossy compression used to compress a track from a CD into a .mp3 file. An algorithm is then applied to create relations between the data points in the dataset ("tokens") and some basic weights are applied.
The next step is what "AI" companies call "training" which is in reality lots and lots of real people working minimum wage in poor countries who are tasked with asking questions in a script & then they evaluate the output according to a manual/instructions written by a handful of people in Silicon Valley.
You may want to look further into this and really think it through if you still don't get that how the weights are adjusted is, in fact, largely _not_ a matter of "luck" or chance. If the "AI" companies want their LLM to present a narrative when asked about a topic then they absolutely can and will make sure the model presents that narrative every time. Consider the implications as more and more people use LLMs like some kind of all-knowing ministry of truth.
@chaekyung I honestly don't think it is helpful to start a dialogue with the statement "You're plain wrong, very naive and clearly clueless"
Clearly you know a lot about this and your participation is welcome, but the ad hominem is not.
If you want more people to understand the way LLMs are trained, then that's great. Try not to shame them before you educate them.
-
@Turre @A_denie @stux @Remittancegirl You're plain wrong, very naive and clearly clueless as to how LLMs are "trained" and here's why:
Any similarities with actual facts is to a very large degree _not_ related to being lucky.
"AI" companies feed a model a lot of data in a way that's not too unlike the lossy compression used to compress a track from a CD into a .mp3 file. An algorithm is then applied to create relations between the data points in the dataset ("tokens") and some basic weights are applied.
The next step is what "AI" companies call "training" which is in reality lots and lots of real people working minimum wage in poor countries who are tasked with asking questions in a script & then they evaluate the output according to a manual/instructions written by a handful of people in Silicon Valley.
You may want to look further into this and really think it through if you still don't get that how the weights are adjusted is, in fact, largely _not_ a matter of "luck" or chance. If the "AI" companies want their LLM to present a narrative when asked about a topic then they absolutely can and will make sure the model presents that narrative every time. Consider the implications as more and more people use LLMs like some kind of all-knowing ministry of truth.
@chaekyung
Charming. I'm aware, you know.Was merely pointing out that ChatGPT doesn't provide facts, that's not how these things operate.
-
@chaekyung I honestly don't think it is helpful to start a dialogue with the statement "You're plain wrong, very naive and clearly clueless"
Clearly you know a lot about this and your participation is welcome, but the ad hominem is not.
If you want more people to understand the way LLMs are trained, then that's great. Try not to shame them before you educate them.
@Remittancegirl @Turre @A_denie @stux "Any similarities with actual facts is being lucky" is plain wrong & naive. Similarly, if you claim 2+2=5 then I'm going to tell you that you can't do math on a child's level.
Feel free to mute me if you can't deal with people stating the obvious.
