In November 2022, the UN symbolically announced that the 8 billionth person was born in Manila, Philippines, adding to the two.3 billion children already living on the earth. In the identical month, one other event occurred that can likely have a huge effect on the education and upbringing of all these children: ChatGPT was launched on November 30, 2022, revolutionizing education for the higher within the opinion of some, but destroying the potential for it for others.
Disruptive innovation vs. breakthrough innovation
Beyond value judgements, generative AI has led technology philosophers and innovation scientists to debate whether ChatGPT amounts to a disruption of education.
Economic theorist and consultant Clayton Christensen has specified that disruptive innovations can goal the technology itself, consumer habits or business models of competitors, to the purpose where their survival is threatened.
To distinguish the terms Breakthrough and disruptive innovationKristina Rakic clarifies:
“Breakthrough innovation is something that expands the competencies of corporations and refers back to the technological dimension of a product (…). Disruptive innovation, as proposed by Christensen, however, refers more to a change out there, a change within the competitive structure that causes the failure of incumbent corporations, and a change within the business model adopted by corporations.”
While there are fears that generative AI Civilization risks and forces us to rethink education. However, some consider it a groundbreaking innovation, much like the printing press, the radio, the pc and the Internet, none of which led to the disappearance of colleges or universities.
The self is unraveled by technology
Several contemporary philosophers argue that digital innovations normally are in continuity with earlier technologies and that the disruption may lie within the transformation of the individuals who use the technology quite than within the technology itself.
For example in (2022, untranslated), French philosopher Isabelle Pariente-Butterlin argues that the digital world is in continuity with the true world and the window through which we navigate it will be those that could be lost without it. Going a step further, in (2016) Michel Puech argues that “the self just isn’t threatened by modern technology but by modern philosophy.” By this he signifies that the self is being diluted not only due to technological development, but because we wouldn’t have the precise philosophical framework that will allow us to make use of technology meaningfully.
There are two major controversies related to the usage of ChatGPT in education: the performance and particularly the accuracy of the knowledge provided, and ethical concerns, reminiscent of the potential for plagiarism. Furthermore, the peculiarity of texts originating from AI is that they’re, by definition, not reliable sources.
Paulm1993/Shutterstock
There are several issues that should be addressed regarding ChatGPT in education, including but not limited to:
-
ChatGPT was found to be referring to non-existent scientific studies. “Inventing” references.
-
In general, the type of creativity that was required for plagiarism and cheating isn’t any longer needed today: students can use ChatGPT to write down essays and even dissertations and it becomes increasingly difficult to detect – despite the dearth of grammatical or spelling errors that might give a clue.
-
Even Editors of magazines have difficulty distinguishing between human texts and people of ChatGPT.
When Turing isn’t any longer enough
The problem of distinguishing between human and machine-induced language was solved by Alan Turing with the so-called Turing test: If a human cannot determine whether he’s having a conversation with a pc or a fellow human, the pc has successfully passed the test. The current situation is that ChatGPT repeatedly passes the Turing test, not only for casual conversations or task-based chatbotsbut in addition in education and science.
In this context, the main focus might have to shift from the tool to the person using it and their understanding of what’s produced. An AI-literate and demanding education would seek to equip students with techniques that transcend those of fast engineering.
A central query for philosophers of technology within the digital age has all the time been: consciousness: Can we have a look at the pc, the software, here ChatGPT, in the identical way as people?
In 1980, at first of the AI journey, philosopher John Searle proposed a thought experiment to reply this query: “Chinese Room”which led to many controversiesImagine a person who speaks no Chinese in any respect is locked in a room. Messages written in Chinese from an unknown sender are pushed under the door. The man doesn’t understand them, but he has access to a book with the proper symbol associations. He then pushes a series of Chinese characters back under the door, making the person outside falsely consider that there’s a Chinese speaker within the room.
This famous thought experiment was used to disprove the idea that what makes something a thought just isn’t its internal structure but its function. Simply put, if it really works, then it’s a thought. In this case, the undeniable fact that the Chinese characters sent back make sense doesn’t mean that the sender – be it human or machine – is presented with true understanding.
The massive use of ChatGPT by students might lead educators to rethink conceptual tools just like the Turing Test or the Chinese Room and ask a special query about consciousness. Perhaps the query just isn’t whether artificial intelligence understands and due to this fact has some extent of consciousness. Rather, it is whether or not students who sometimes use AI are in a Chinese Room and understand what they’re doing, or whether or not they themselves have change into mere inputs in a system they’ll now not understand.
A disruption or simply an innovation?
In conclusion, ChatGPT is a groundbreaking innovation in education. However, it is just too early to say whether it’s a disruptive innovation that may transform schools and universities.
Furthermore, this reflection on learning through a conversational process between student and ChatGPT shouldn’t blind us to the undeniable fact that the acquisition of latest knowledge is promoted through social interactionbe it with professors or other students. This give attention to social epistemology could give universities and other educational institutions hope that they are going to not face an excessive amount of disruption within the short term.
