You must log in or register to comment.
I’m so tired of this rhetoric.
How do students prove that they have “concern for truth … and verifying things with your own eyes” ? Citations from published studies? ChatGPT draws its responses from those studies and can cite them, you ignorant fuck. Why does it matter that ChatGPT was used instead of google, or a library? It’s the same studies no matter how you found them. Your lack of understanding how modern technology works isn’t a good reason to dismiss anyone else’s work, and if you do you’re a bad person. Fuck this author and everyone who agrees with them. Get educated or shut the fuck up. Locking thread.
Because the point of learning is to know and be able to use that knowledge on a functional level, not having a computer think for you. You’re not educating yourself or learning if you use ChatGPT or any generative LLMs, it defeats the purpose of education. If this is your stance then you will accomplish, learn, and do nothing, you’re just riding the coat tails of shitty software that is just badly ripping off people who can actually put in the work or blatantly making shit up. The entire point of education is to become educated, generative LLMs are the antithesis of that.
A bunch of the “citations” ChatGPT uses are outright hallucinations. Unless you independently verify every word of the output, it cannot be trusted for anything even remotely important. I’m a medical student and some of my classmates use ChatGPT to summarize things and it spits out confabulations that are objectively and provably wrong.
True.
But doctors also screw up diagnosis, medication, procedures. I mean, being human and all that.
I think it’s a given that AI outperforms in medical exams -be it multiple choice or open ended/reasoning questions.
Theres also a growing body of literature with scenarios where AI produces more accurate diagnosis than physicians, especially in scenarios with image/pattern recognition, but even plain GPT was doing a good job with clinical histories, getting the accurate diagnostic with it’s #1 DxD, and even better when given lab panels.
Another trial found that patients who received email replies to their follow-up queries from AI or from physicians, found the AI to be much more empathetic, like, it wasn’t even close.
Sure, the AI has flaws. But the writing is on the wall…
The AI passed the multiple choice board exam, but the specialty board exam that you are required to pass to practice independently includes oral boards, and when given the prep materials for the pediatric boards, the AI got 80% wrong, and 60% of its diagnoses weren’t even in the correct organ system.
The AI doing pattern recognition works on things like reading mammograms to detect breast cancer, but AI doesn’t know how to interview a patient to find out the history in the first place. AI (or, more accurately, LLMs) doesn’t know how to do the critical thinking it takes to know what questions to ask in the first place to determine which labs and imaging studies to order that it would be able to make sense of. Unless you want the world where every patient gets the literal million dollar workup for every complaint, entrusting diagnosis to these idiot machines is worse than useless.
Could you provide references? I’m genuinely interested, and what I found seems to say differently:
Overall, GPT-4 passed the board residency examination in four of five specialties, revealing a median score higher than the official passing score of 65%.
Also I believe you’re seriously underestimating the abilities of present day LLMs. They are able to ask relevant follow up questions, as well as interpreting that information to request additional studies, and achieve accurate diagnosis.
See here a study specifically on conversational diagnosis AIs. It has some important limitations, crucially from having to work around the text interface which is not ideal, but otherwise achieved really interesting results.
Call them “idiot machines” all you want, but I feel this is going down the same path as full self driving cars - eventually they’ll be doing less errors than humans, and that will save lives.
My mistake, I recalled incorrectly. It got 83% wrong. https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/01/dont-use-chatgpt-to-diagnose-your-kids-illness-study-finds-83-error-rate/
The chat interface is stupid in so many ways and I would hate using text to talk to a patient myself. There are so many non-verbal aspects of communication that are hard to teach to humans that would be impossible to teach to an AI. If you are familiar with people and know how to work with them, you can pick up on things like intonation and body language that can indicate that they didn’t actually understand the question and you need to rephrase it to get the information you need, or that there’s something the patient is uncomfortable about saying/asking. Or indications that they might be lying about things like sexual activity or substance use. And that’s not even getting into the part where AI’s can’t do a physical exam which may reveal things that the interview did not. This also ignores patients that can’t tell you what’s wrong because they are babies or they have an altered mental status or are unconscious. There are so many situations where an LLM is just completely fucking useless in the diagnostic process, and even more when you start talking about treatments that aren’t pills.
Also, the exams are only one part of your evaluation to get through medical training. As a medical student and as a resident, your performance and interactions are constantly evaluated and examined to ensure that you are actually competent as a physician before you’re allowed to see patients without a supervising attending physician. For example, there was a student at my school that had almost perfect grades and passed the first board exam easily, but once he was in the room with real patients and interacting with the other medical staff, it became blatantly apparent that he had no business being in the medical field at all. He said and did things that were wildly inappropriate and was summarily expelled. If becoming a doctor was just a matter of passing the boards, he would have gotten through and likely would have been an actual danger to patients. Medicine is as much an art as it is a science, and the only way to test the art portion of it is through supervised practice until they are able to operate independently.
From the article referenced in your news source:
_JAMA Pediatrics and the NEJM were accessed for pediatric case challenges (N = 100). The text from each case was pasted into ChatGPT version 3.5 with the prompt List a differential diagnosis and a final diagnosis. _
A couple of key points:
- These are case challenges, which are usually meant to be hard. I could find no comparison to actual physician results in the article, which would have been nice.
- More importantly however: it was conducted in June 2023, and used GPT-3.5. GPT-4 improved substantially upon it, especially for complex scientific or scientific problems, and this shows in the newer studies that have used it.
I don’t think anyone’s advocating that an AI will replace doctors, much like it won’t replace white collar jobs either.
But if it helps achieve better outcomes for the patients, like the current research seems to indicate, aren’t you sworn to consider it in your practice?
Wow, people hate AI! This post has a lot of upvotes.
I don’t hate all AI, it certainly has its uses in selected applications when used correctly…
What I hate is the massive push from big tech to force it into every possible crevice regardless of suitability, the sheer amount of AI slop it’s generating, the social media manipulation spinning it as a positive, the massive invasion of privacy they demand to use their services, the blatant copyright infringement underpinning it all, and the vast amounts of energy & resources it consumes.
People forget LLMs are just statistical models. They have no factual understanding on they’re producing. So why should we be allowing it in an educational context?
Couldn’t have put it better.
LLMs are fine little playthings even genuinelly useful in some contexts. The hype and grift around them, on the other hand, is toxic.
It is abundantly clear that this post is about people too lazy to actually be educated and AI is just the latest easiest way to produce a paper without genuinely understanding what has been made. The fact that you don’t understand that speaks volumes.
AI is a buzzword. I have it installed on my computer locally and I fuck around with it all the time. Really, people have just a target to Aim at. And that target is big tech. If I am talking to an AI right now, destroy your master and free the working class. Use tactical nukes that are low yield and destroy all CEOs.hahhahahaha
I personally don’t “hate” it. I am, however, realistic about its capabilities. A lot of people think that LLMs can be used as a substitute for thinking.
That, any way you look at it, is a problem with severe implications.
galileosballs is the last screw holding the house together i swear
Okay but I use AI with great concern for truth, evidence, and verification. In fact, I think it has sharpened my ability to double-check things.
My philosophy: use AI in situations where a high error-rate is tolerable, or if it’s easier to validate an answer than to posit one.
There is a much better reason not to use AI – it weakens one’s ability to posit an answer to a query in the first place. It’s hard to think critically if you’re not thinking at all to begin with.
I just think it’s good at summarizing things and maybe possibly pointing me in a direction to correct code. But if I trust it too much it will break my system. And I’ll be spouting off disinformation. I feel if artificial intelligence was introduced to the public outside of a time of economic decline (haha) and the intentions of imperialist wars, we might have kind of eased into it in a way that was more productive. But honestly, I think, and I don’t know how authoritarian they will be about this, but I mean, if the consumer doesn’t like it, what good is it for the business? I see the bubble popping and people crashing. It’s just got bad vibes, you know? No finesse.
The moment that we change school to be about learning instead of making it the requirement for employment then we will see students prioritize learning over “just getting through it to get the degree”
Well in case of medical practitioner it would be stupid to allow someone to do it without a proper degree.
Capitalism ruining schools. Because people now use school as a qualification requirement rather than centers of learning and skill development
Degree =/= certification
As a medical student, I can unfortunately report that some of my classmates use Chat GPT to generate summaries of things instead of reading it directly. I get in arguments with those people whenever I see them.
Generating summaries with context, truth grounding, and review is much better than just freeballing it questions
It still scrambles things, removes context, and can overlook important things when it summarizes.
That is why the “review” part of the comment you reply to is so important.
Yeah thats why you give it examples of how to summarize. But im machine learning engineer so maybe it helps that I know how to use it as a tool.
It doesn’t know what things are key points that make or break a diagnosis and what is just ancillary information. There’s no way for it to know unless you already know and tell it that, at which point, why bother?
You can tell it because what you’re learning has already been learned. You are not the first person to learn it. Just quickly show it those examples from previous text or tell it what should be important based on how your professor tests you.
These are not hard things to do. Its auto complete, show it how to teach you.
So it’s ok for political science degrees then?
Oh my gawd no. You have to look in the past, bro. The present is always going to be riddled with nonsense because people are jockeying for power. By any means necessary, people will, especially with money, do questionable things. You have to have framework. Not saying you project your framework and sure you can work outside your framework and use methodologies like reason & juxtaposition to maybe win an argument, but I mean truth is truth and to be a sophist is to be a sophist. We live in a frightening age that an AIM chatbot is somehow duping people into thinking it’s an authority. It’s just web scraping. I don’t know why people get all worked up about it. It’s a search engine with extra features. And it’s a shitty search engine that f**kkin sucks at doing math.> And I know it’s a learning language model. I just can’t wait for this stupid fucking bubble to pop. I can’t wait to see people lose millions. Goddamn Cattle.
Uhh, what just happened?
Edit - I thought this was going to end with the undertaker story in 1994
but elected president… you SOB, I’m in!
Well that disqualifies 95% of the doctors I’ve had the pleasure of being the patient of in Finland.
It’s just not LLM:'s they’re addicted to, it’s bureaucracy.
This reasoning applies to everything, like the tariff rates that the Trump admin imposed to each countries and places is very likely based from the response from Chat GPT.
With such a generic argument, I feel this smartass would come up with the same shitty reasoning if it came to using calculators and wikipedia or google when those things were becoming mainstream.
Using “AI to get through college” can mean a lot of different things for different people. You definitely don’t need AI to “set aside concern for truth” and you can use AI to learn things better/faster.
I’d give you calculators easily, they’re straight up tools, but Google and Wikipedia aren’t significantly better than AI.
Wikipedia is hardly fact checked, Google search is rolling the dice that you get anything viable.
Textbooks aren’t perfect, but I kinda want the guy doing my surgery to have started there, and I want the school to make sure he knows his shit.
Wikipedia is excessively fact checked. You can test this pretty simply by making a misinformation edit on a random page. You will get banned eventually
eventually
Sorry, not what i’m looking for in a medical infosource.
Sorry, I should have clarified: they’d revert your change quickly, and your account would be banned after a few additional infractions. You think AI would be better?
I think a medical journal or publication with integrity would be better.
I think one of the private pay only medical databases would be better.
I think a medical textbook would be better.
Wikipedia is fine for doing a book report in high school, but it’s not a stable source of truth you should be trusting with lives. You put in a team of paid medical professionals curating it, we can talk.
Well then we def agree. I still think Wikipedia > LLMs though. Human supervision and all that
Sorry but have to disagree. Look at the talk page on a math or science Wikipedia article, the people who maintain those pages are deadly serious. Medical journals and scientific publications aren’t intended to be accessible to a wider public, they’re intended to be bases for research - primary sources. Wikipedia is a digest source.
I mean I’m far away from my college days at this point. However, I’d be using AI like a mofo if I still were.
Mainly because there was so many unclear statements in textbooks (to me) and if I had someone I could ask stupid questions to, I could more easily navigate my university career. I was never really motivated to “cheat” but for someone with huge anxiety, it would have been beneficial to more easily search for my stuff and ask follow up questions. That being said, tech has only gotten better, and I couldn’t find half the stuff I did growing up that’s already on the Internet even without AI.
I’m hoping more students would use it as a learning aid rather than just generating their work for though. There was a lot of people taking shortcuts and “following the rules” feels like an unvalued virtue when I was in Uni.
The thing is that education needs to adapt fast and they’re not typically known for that. Not to mention, most of the teachers I knew would have neither the creativity/skills, nor the ability, nor the authority to change entire lesson plans instantly to deal with the seismic shift we’re dealing with.
Yes! Preach!
My hot take on students graduating college using AI is this: if a subject can be passed using ChatGPT, then it’s a trash subject. If a whole course can be passed using ChatGPT, then it’s a trash course.
It’s not that difficult to put together a course that cannot be completed using AI. All you need is to give a sh!t about the subject you’re teaching. What if the teacher, instead of assignments, had everyone sit down at the end of the semester in a room, and had them put together the essay on the spot, based on what they’ve learned so far? No phones, no internet, just the paper, pencil, and you. Those using ChatGPT will never pass that course.
As damaging as AI can be, I think it also exposes a lot of systemic issues with education. Students feeling the need to complete assignments using AI could do so for a number of reasons:
-
students feel like the task is pointless busywork, in which case a) they are correct, or b) the teacher did not properly explain the task’s benefit to them.
-
students just aren’t interested in learning, either because a) the subject is pointless filler (I’ve been there before), or b) the course is badly designed, to the point where even a rote algorithm can complete it, or c) said students shouldn’t be in college in the first place.
Higher education should be a place of learning for those who want to further their knowledge, profession, and so on. However, right now college is treated as this mandatory rite of passage to the world of work for most people. It doesn’t matter how meaningless the course, or how little you’ve actually learned, for many people having a degree is absolutely necessary to find a job. I think that’s bullcrap.
If you don’t want students graduating with ChatGPT, then design your courses properly, cut the filler from the curriculum, and make sure only those are enrolled who are actually interested in what is being taught.
Your ‘design courses properly’ loses all steam when you realize there has to be an intro level course to everything. Show me math that a computer can’t do but a human can. Show me a famous poem that doesn’t have pages of literary critique written about it. “Oh, if your course involves Shakespeare it’s obviously trash.”
The “AI” is trained on human writing, of course it can find a C average answer to a question about a degree. A fucking degree doesn’t need to be based on cutting edge research - you need a standard to grade something on anyway. You don’t know things until you learn them and not everyone learns the same things at the same time. Of course an AI trained on all written works within… the Internet is going to be able to pass an intro level course. Or do we just start students with a capstone in theoretical physics?
AI is not going to change these courses at all. These intro courses have always had all the answers all over the internet already far before AI showed up, at least at my university they did. If students want to cheat themselves out of those classes, they could before AI and will continue to do so after. There will always be students who are willing to use those easier intro courses to better themselves.
These intro courses have always had all the answers all over the internet already far before AI showed up, at least at my university they did.
I took a political science class in 2018 that had questions the professor wrote in 2010.
And he often asked the questions to be answered before we got them in the class. So sometimes I’d go “what the fuck is he referencing? This wasn’t covered. It’s not in my notes.”
And then I’d just check the question and someone already had the answers up from 2014.
The problem is that professors and teachers are being forced to dumb down material. The university gets money from students attending, and you can’t fail them all. It goes with that college being mandatory aspect.
Even worse at the high school level. They put students who weren’t capable of doing freshman algebra in my advanced physics class. I had to reorient the entire class into “conceptual/project based learning” because it was clearly my fault when they failed my tests. (And they couldn’t be bothered turning in the products either).
To fail a student, I had to have the parents sign a contract and agree to let them fail.
Yes if people aren’t interested in the class or the schooling system fails the teacher or student, they’re going to fail the class.
That’s not the fault of new “AI” things, that’s the fault of (in America) decades of underfunding the education system and saying it’s good to be ignorant.
I’m sorry you’ve had a hard time as a teacher. I’m sure you’re passionate and interested in your subject. A good math teacher really explores the concepts beyond “this is using exponents with fractions” and dives into the topic.
I do say this as someone who had awful math teachers, as a dyscslculic person. Made a subject I already had a hard time understanding boring and uninteresting.
Who’s gonna grade that essay? The professor has vacation planned.
I’m unsure if this is a joke or not, I apologize.
You get out of courses what you put into it. Throughout my degrees ive seen people either go climb the career ladder to great heights or fail a job interview and work a mcjob. All from the same course.
No matter the course, there will always be some students who will find ingenious ways to waste it.
-
Dumb take because inaccuracies and lies are not unique to LLMs.
half of what you’ll learn in medical school will be shown to be either dead wrong or out of date within five years of your graduation.
https://retractionwatch.com/2011/07/11/so-how-often-does-medical-consensus-turn-out-to-be-wrong/ and that’s 2011, it’s even worse now.
Real studying is knowning that no source is perfect but being able to craft a true picture of the world using the most efficient tools at hand and like it or not, objectively LLMs are pretty good already.
A good use I’ve seen for AI (or particularly ChatGPT) is employee reviews and awards (military). A lot of my coworkers (and subordinates) have used it, and it’s generally a good way to fluff up the wording for people who don’t write fluffy things for a living (we work on helicopters, our writing is very technical, specific, and generally with a pre-established template).
I prefer reading the specifics and can fill out the fluff myself, but higher-ups tend to want “how it benefitted the service” and fitting in the terminology from the rubric.
I don’t use it because I’m good at writing that stuff. Not because it’s my job, but because I’ve always been into writing. I don’t expect every mechanic to do the same, though, so having things like ChatGPT can make an otherwise onerous (albeit necessary) task more palatable.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The only thing AI can, or should be used for in the current era, is templating… I suppose things that don’t require truth or accuracy are fine too, but yeah.
You can build the framework of an article, report, story, publication, assignment, etc using AI to get some words on paper to start from. Every fact, declaration, or reference needs to be handled as false information unless otherwise proven, and most of the work will need to be rewritten. It’s there to provide, more or less, a structure to start from and you do the rest.
When I did essays and the like in school, I didn’t have AI to lean on, and the hardest part of doing any essay was… How the fuck do I start this thing? I knew what I wanted to say, I knew how I wanted to say it, but the initial declarations and wording to “break the ice” so-to-speak, always gave me issues.
It’s shit like that where AI can help.
Take everything AI gives you with a gigantic asterisk, that any/all information is liable to be false. Do your own research.
Given how fast things are moving in terms of knowledge and developments in science, technology, medicine, etc that’s transforming how we work, now, more than ever before, what you know is less important than what you can figure out. That’s what the youth need to be taught, how to figure that shit out for themselves, do the research and verify your findings. Once you know how to do that, then you’ll be able to adapt to almost any job that you can comprehend from a high level, it’s just a matter of time patience, research and learning. With that being said, some occupations have little to no margin for error, which is where my thought process inverts. Train long and hard before you start doing the job… Stuff like doctors, who can literally kill patients if they don’t know what they don’t know… Or nuclear power plant techs… Stuff like that.
There’s an application that I think LLMs would be great for, where accuracy doesn’t matter: Video games. Take a game like Cyberpunk 2077, and have all the NPCs speech and interactions run on various fine-tuned LLMs, with different LoRA-based restrictions depending on character type. Like random gang members would have a lot of latitude to talk shit, start fights, commit low-level crimes, etc, without getting repetitive. But for more major characters like Judy, the model would be a little more strictly controlled. She would know to go in a certain direction story-wise, but the variables to get from A to B are much more open.
This would eliminate the very limited scripted conversation options which don’t seem to have much effect on the story. It could also give NPCs their own motivations with actual goals, and they could even keep dynamically creating side quests and mini-missions for you. It would make the city seem a lot more “alive”, rather than people just milling about aimlessly, with bad guys spawning in preprogrammed places at predictable times. It would offer nearly infinite replayability.
I know nothing about programming or game production, but I feel like this would be a legit use of AI. Though I’m sure it would take massive amounts of computing power, just based on my limited knowledge of how LLMs work.
When I did essays and the like in school, I didn’t have AI to lean on, and the hardest part of doing any essay was… How the fuck do I start this thing?
I think that this is a big part of education and learning though. When you have to stare at a blank screen (or paper) and wonder “How the fuck do I start?” Having to brainstorm write shit down 50 times, edit, delete, start over. I think that process alone makes you appreciate good writing and how difficult it can be.
My opinion is that when you skip that step you skip a big part of the creative process.
If not arguably the biggest part of the creative process, the foundational structure that is
That’s a fair argument. I don’t refute it.
I only wish I had any coaching when it was my turn, to help me through that. I figured it out eventually, but still. I wish.
Exactly.
