These points are well-taken. I don't want anyone to think that I'm minimizing the potential threat of this technology, or, as you say "the power the hold over us," but that's one of the reasons I'll still insist it can't read or write. The bots can hoover up and spit out syntax, but they have no independent understanding or appreciation.…
These points are well-taken. I don't want anyone to think that I'm minimizing the potential threat of this technology, or, as you say "the power the hold over us," but that's one of the reasons I'll still insist it can't read or write. The bots can hoover up and spit out syntax, but they have no independent understanding or appreciation. Unlike humans they have no emotional response to something they read or write.
One of the things I try to do with students is to encourage them to trust their immediate emotional (and physical) reactions to texts as meaningful data perhaps the the most meaningful data. I give them experiences to practice a method I call ROAS (I wish I had a better acronym) which stands for:
React
Observe
Analyze
Synthesize
This, for me, is a human response to text and by starting with the human response before we attempt to analyze the text and then synthesize that analysis into meaning, we're doing something no algorithm can duplicate. The really bad turn that school took was codifying a set of answers (for both reading and writing) that students were expected to figure out. That is the student acting like an algorithm. It's sort of incredible how far away we've gotten from letting students be human.
The AI can definitely create "text," and there's an interesting argument in the epistemological realm about whether or not its remixing of stuff that humans generated makes it "writing" but for me, writing is more than arranging syntax. Reading is more than taking in information. They are embodied experiences, and without the bodies, the meaning isn't the same.
I love that approach! Beginning with a reader's emotional connection to a text seems both human and humane :). As a lit student, I learned with traditional Socratic-style discussions and loose essay assignments. For six years it was basically the same thing: read a text, talk about it, write about it (however you like as long as it's within word count). I had a tremendous amount of freedom. I've only recently realized how lucky I was. If the assignments had been more prescriptive or not reading- and writing-centered, I'm not sure I would have finished college. It will be interesting what effect language-model technologies like ChatGPT have on humanities programs that are built around the essay.
These points are well-taken. I don't want anyone to think that I'm minimizing the potential threat of this technology, or, as you say "the power the hold over us," but that's one of the reasons I'll still insist it can't read or write. The bots can hoover up and spit out syntax, but they have no independent understanding or appreciation. Unlike humans they have no emotional response to something they read or write.
One of the things I try to do with students is to encourage them to trust their immediate emotional (and physical) reactions to texts as meaningful data perhaps the the most meaningful data. I give them experiences to practice a method I call ROAS (I wish I had a better acronym) which stands for:
React
Observe
Analyze
Synthesize
This, for me, is a human response to text and by starting with the human response before we attempt to analyze the text and then synthesize that analysis into meaning, we're doing something no algorithm can duplicate. The really bad turn that school took was codifying a set of answers (for both reading and writing) that students were expected to figure out. That is the student acting like an algorithm. It's sort of incredible how far away we've gotten from letting students be human.
The AI can definitely create "text," and there's an interesting argument in the epistemological realm about whether or not its remixing of stuff that humans generated makes it "writing" but for me, writing is more than arranging syntax. Reading is more than taking in information. They are embodied experiences, and without the bodies, the meaning isn't the same.
I love that approach! Beginning with a reader's emotional connection to a text seems both human and humane :). As a lit student, I learned with traditional Socratic-style discussions and loose essay assignments. For six years it was basically the same thing: read a text, talk about it, write about it (however you like as long as it's within word count). I had a tremendous amount of freedom. I've only recently realized how lucky I was. If the assignments had been more prescriptive or not reading- and writing-centered, I'm not sure I would have finished college. It will be interesting what effect language-model technologies like ChatGPT have on humanities programs that are built around the essay.