Right?! They were just using ChatGPT to get answers for practice questions without actually doing any work. I'm surprised their test scores didn't plunge more than they did!
That's one of the reasons that, after the initial infatuation, I actively try to avoid ChatGPT except for very specific scenarios. It's like a cheap life choice - seems attractive on the surface but the long-term outcomes are often worse.
I'm definitely not a heavy advocate of GPT or similar... as much as I do like GH Copilot for some things. For almost anything of any complexity, there are often wrong things in the output from ChatGPT and you have to be able to spot them.
I can see it definitely being more harm than good if you rely on it too early/heavily in general.
> I'm definitely not a heavy advocate of GPT or similar... as much as I do like GH Copilot for some things. For almost anything of any complexity, there are often wrong things in the output from ChatGPT and you have to be able to spot them.
While that's true, my problem is something else: by outsourcing the reasoning process to a machine, my brain gets weaker. By doing less programing tasks, I become a worse programmer, even though on the surface I might look like a more productive one.
Absolutely, I think this is amplified by overall experience of any given dev using AI assisted dev. I think for someone in, or just out of school it will definitely hinder the learning experience. On the flip side, I know people with decades of dev experience that are able to much more quickly dig in to something new and become productive, partly because they can often spot the wrong parts before even trying it.
I'm not sure how bad/good the differences are in terms of getting bitten. I do think it will definitely hinder learning if you don't actually try to understand what you're doing, which I know a lot of devs will do. Not that it's entirely bad, I think there is room for devs who are just pushing out tickets in some environments, and others that care far more about the craft of software development. If it were left completely to the former, everything would eventually fall apart for lack of disciplined approach. If it were completely the latter, then every project would be on its third rewrite and second language before ever launching. I'm more of the latter, but pragmatic with age and experience.
I like to use it to help me with math problems, or rather when I get the wrong answer to a math problem I use chatgpt to show me the steps and then I am able to review my work.
> A third group of students had access to a revised version of ChatGPT that functioned more like a tutor. This chatbot was programmed to provide hints without directly divulging the answer. The students who used it did spectacularly better on the practice problems, solving 127 percent more of them correctly compared with students who did their practice work without any high-tech aids. But on a test afterwards, these AI-tutored students did no better. Students who just did their practice problems the old fashioned way — on their own — matched their test scores.
To paraphrase, it seems that it is suggesting that leaning is harmed because assistant helps them to get better results, but hurt them in the process of doing so, where less understanding and thinking is involved.
It is interesting that it likens that to autopilot, where FAA is recommending people to minimize for a similar reason.
Since Math is known to be not a forte of Gen AI, it is a bit questionable if that contributes to the effects they are seeing. But as they claimed, it seems the effects is related to the reliance and “short cutting the thinking process” but not the ability of gen AI in that subject.
That makes me think about parents helping kids to do homework (it’s a thing in Hong Kong.) The immediate effects would enhance their results in homework grades. But now I wonder if they are inadvertently hurting their exam grades.
In order words, I wonder how this result would generalize to human tutor as well. I suppose it would too, and depending on their pedagogy (or the lack of) it would harms students in a similar way.
20 comments
[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 53.8 ms ] threadI can see it definitely being more harm than good if you rely on it too early/heavily in general.
While that's true, my problem is something else: by outsourcing the reasoning process to a machine, my brain gets weaker. By doing less programing tasks, I become a worse programmer, even though on the surface I might look like a more productive one.
I'm not sure how bad/good the differences are in terms of getting bitten. I do think it will definitely hinder learning if you don't actually try to understand what you're doing, which I know a lot of devs will do. Not that it's entirely bad, I think there is room for devs who are just pushing out tickets in some environments, and others that care far more about the craft of software development. If it were left completely to the former, everything would eventually fall apart for lack of disciplined approach. If it were completely the latter, then every project would be on its third rewrite and second language before ever launching. I'm more of the latter, but pragmatic with age and experience.
I have a feeling that is an unintentional #2 that dominates reality.
It is interesting that it likens that to autopilot, where FAA is recommending people to minimize for a similar reason.
Since Math is known to be not a forte of Gen AI, it is a bit questionable if that contributes to the effects they are seeing. But as they claimed, it seems the effects is related to the reliance and “short cutting the thinking process” but not the ability of gen AI in that subject.
That makes me think about parents helping kids to do homework (it’s a thing in Hong Kong.) The immediate effects would enhance their results in homework grades. But now I wonder if they are inadvertently hurting their exam grades.
In order words, I wonder how this result would generalize to human tutor as well. I suppose it would too, and depending on their pedagogy (or the lack of) it would harms students in a similar way.