Lhe debates sparked by the arrival of the ChatGPT artificial intelligence-based messaging application now go far beyond the circle of digital enthusiasts. Almost everywhere, in fact, we try our hand at this tool, and it is rare that we are not impressed by the result obtained.
Also listen ChatGPT: gadget or artificial intelligence revolution?
Without underestimating the technical performance and the colossal work that allowed the development of this conversational software, remember that it works on a relatively simple principle: it manufactures texts word after word in such a way that each of them is followed by the statistically dominant occurrences in the gigantic database identified by its designers (which represents more than 750,000 times the volume of the Bible). It is therefore not surprising that he does not provide any references. A reference refers, in fact, to a singular discourse – whose strength or originality make it a remarkable expression –, while ChatGPT counts and uses (in record time) the most widespread remarks in the mass of available data, by smoothing their wording according to the dominant rules of the good use.
We can, of course, have fun putting ChatGPT in difficulty, or even in failure, by looking for questions whose formulation (ambiguous or contradictory) produces absurd answers. But, let’s not doubt it: this will not discourage anyone from using a tool whose efficiency, in terms of information gathering and writing, is astounding.
An opportunity to seize
It is therefore understandable that some professors fear that it exempts their pupils or students from research and writing work, or even compromises the possibility of any evaluation. Others consider, on the other hand, that any attempt to ban the matter will remain futile and prefer to seize the tool to work with their pupils or students. They teach them to ask questions in different forms to compare the answers; they compare these answers with those of textbooks and encyclopedias; they help them identify semantic shifts that lead to misunderstandings and compromise the objectivity of the text; they use ChatGPT’s proposals as drafts to complete and personalize, or have them translated into other textual, graphic or visual forms.
These teachers don’t care that their pupils or students give them texts from ChatGPT: they accompany them enough in the process of writing texts to see them gradually build up before their eyes. And, if necessary, they are perfectly capable, in one or two oral questions, of verifying that they are indeed the authors. Moreover, they see the arrival of this miracle software as a great opportunity to rethink the evaluation tests by giving a greater role to invention and personal expression.
You have 52.17% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.