View Single Post
Old 03-19-2023, 07:59 AM   #94
gmw
cacoethes scribendi
gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
gmw's Avatar
 
Posts: 5,818
Karma: 137770742
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Device: Kobo Aura One & H2Ov2, Sony PRS-650
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quoth View Post
I'm just a messenger.
The problem is that Chatbots are inherently unreliable. Citations and references can simply be a lie.

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...ten-by-chatbot
It's an odd sort of essay. In parts trying to say how good the Chatbots are, and how difficult it is getting to detect them, but then offering various tells: “The use of English and quality of grammar is often better than from a student.”, and the one you quoted about references.

So which is it? Is using an unreliable chatbot the reliable way to get thrown out of Uni, or have chatbots become the new way of teaching: you can get the answer from a chatbot but then you have to learn your subject so you know whether the chatbot is right; your main bonus being that its grammar is probably better than yours.


It would be interesting to know if the reference issues were deliberate. It seems like a reasonable way to offer some sort of protection: force anyone wanting to produce academic quality results to at least validate and correct the references. For general use, the occasional redundant reference is not going to be a huge issue.
gmw is offline   Reply With Quote