Responses to ChatGPT
Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT) is a type of language model developed by OpenAI. It uses deep learning techniques, specifically a type of neural network called a transformer, to generate human-like text. While ChatGPT has the ability to generate text and respond to natural language inputs, it is not capable of true human-level understanding. Responses can sometimes be nonsensical and the programmers have also put boundaries on the system in an attempt to curb hateful speech.
You might have heard of ChatGPT as this strange new techy thing to ignore. Or perhaps you can’t get it out of your mind and it haunts you like a specter of existential professional dread. At minimum, it is a disruption. Many of us have lived through similar appearances like the Internet, Wikipedia, or MOOCs that promised to revolutionize higher education. All of these, except MOOCs, have altered and changed learning and teaching but none of them have brought ruin.
In this article, we provide some context to the disruptive potential that AI technology might pose to higher education and explore the three common responses of faculty and administrators: ignore, fight, or embrace.
Ignore ChatGPT
The default response to all disruptive changes is to ignore them. While this is by far the easiest approach, ChatGPT is here and our students won’t ignore it. Some instructors will ignore it out of misunderstanding or believing it inconsequential or impossible. Yet others will practice willful ignorance. The latter group, having come to understand the implications of machine learning, will choose to deny its potential because of the professional implications of this dark vision: AI will make what professors do obsolete. It is easier to deny than it is to acknowledge, especially when we are embedded in a culture of denial (see Kari Norgaard).
The problem with ignorance is that the technology is here and our students will use it. Moreover, if we ignore it, we might inadvertently punish students who do not use it. Those that use ChatGPT to answer essay prompts will likely earn higher grades on assignments than those who struggle to write in their own, original words.
Fight ChatGPT
Seeing AI and machine learning as an existential threat to the university and professorship itself, many will want to take on and attempt to defeat or weaken ChatGPT and other similar tools. These efforts could take many forms.
Universities could attempt to ban the use of ChatGPT in student coursework. Instructors could individually check student submissions against ChatGPT outputs or they could use newly devised counter measures, such as the GPTZero. Other approaches might include constantly redesigning prompts to attempt to stay ahead of the AI, or utilizing other assessment tools. Lastly, there will be a subset of instructors who will do their own sniff tests to determine when a student wrote it or an AI.
Each of these maneuvers has pitfalls. Faculty who choose to fight are likely in for a protracted arms race. ChatGPT is an evolving system backed by billions of dollars of investment. Moreover, ChatGPT can already answer prompts in multiple ways, thereby making it harder to find the “original” text. Fighting also means engaging in more surveillance and policing of students and raises issues about selective application based on instructors’ biases. The prospect of fighting it without large-scale institutional and technological support is daunting.
Embrace ChatGPT
The third grouping of responses seems the most reasonable given what we know about the technology and disruptive innovations in general. What if we consider ChatGPT as a new tool to improve writing? A preliminary exercise for all of us will be to consider why we assign writing. If your goal is to check for understanding through quick writing prompts we regret to inform you that this technology will make this almost impossible.
If your goal is to build competence in writing and thought development, we believe there is a viable path forward.
We will educate ourselves on ChatGPT and become competent users.
We will introduce our classes to the technology in a transparent way to level the playing field among students.
We imagine a world where a student may enter an essay prompt into the program to generate some suggested citations, starter language and basic ideas. It will be up to the student and faculty to check the material for accuracy and build on the initial piece to produce original insight.
Knowns, Unknowns, and Unknown Unknowns
There is a lot we don’t know about this technology and its implications for education. We can imagine it exacerbating the digital divide based on students that have reliable high-speed internet access being able to access the tool or if OpenAI begins charging users for the service.
We can also imagine it having a positive impact on achievement gaps as it may provide a way to democratize access to basic resources and research. We also have to acknowledge there are unpredictable outcomes with new technologies that are difficult to foresee–often with dire consequences.
We do know that ChatGPT is here, probably the first of many such programs of increasing sophistication, and that students will be using it whether we want them to or not. It is a useful tool even if it creates problems and outcomes we cannot predict. It was even useful to us in writing this piece as the first draft of the introduction describing ChatGPT was written by ChatGPT.