Follow

ChatGPT's Achilles Heel

I just posted a discussion of ChatGPT's major weakness for the Sentient Syllabus Project: sentientsyllabus.substack.com/

It falls prey to its "Schrödinger Facts".

In a nutshell: ask the AI for sources - and then check whether they actually exist. They usually don't. Requests for specific, provable sources turn out to be ChatGPT’s achilles heel.

That's a big deal: (a) we can (and should) always require students to attribute ideas anyway, and chasing down the source of a ChatGPT claim may be more work than working from an actual source; (b) ChatGPTs information is not useless though - and can be very valuable to point to the right direction; (c) while we become masters in attribution, the collaboration benefits in other ways, and the end result is improved.

Find our resources on academia and the new AI at sentientsyllabus.substack.com and on sentientsyllabus.org

... and share this information to whoever might find it useful.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.