This is why I focused my class around using tools like SoduWrite that integrate into the writing process. The future of AI writing isn't chatbots. They are useful, but the real writing happens in tandem with AI and that doesn't really happen in a chatbot.
This is also why I take a structured approach. I never talk to ChatGPT like a person, and I think it handles structured content better ... well, so do humans, but we usually ignore that.
This sounds like the way forward. Hadn’t heard of SoduWrite, thanks for sharing that. Took a look at the website and looks pretty interesting.
What has your students’ experience of their use of it been? Do you have a specific way that you suggest they use it?
Also curious if there is a way to track what is original student writing without AI and where there has been AI input. And if you think that is an important feature.
I am a higher ed teacher in the field of design (primarily graphic design). Hence tools like Adobe Firefly are more relevant than ChatGPT to me and my learners, but I have actually used SudoWrite quite extensively and agree with @LanceCummings.
The short answer is that there is no reliable way to tag, identify or disentangle what is AI and what is human input in a final creative work, viewed in isolation, as a finished product.
However, I f we observe and document the process that lead to the final product, then we can not only validate it, we can coach that process, which in my view was the real goal.
In regard to how AI can break the academic integrity of simply asking knowledge based questions, I have been seeing educators employing practices like - “put this question to ChatGPT, quote the response, now critique that response”. I think that’s really clever, but you can still have a more intricate prompt, or series of them, fabricating the entire thing.
In the end, the assessor still needs to evidence of thinking & understanding in that reflection. These tools aren’t great at that part, because they do neither, but sometimes the response will be indistinguishable from it.
So we experimented with using in multiple ways. Each week, we used a different aspect of the tool or changed the settings in specific ways. Here are few thoughts I had after the class.
It doesn't really track what is AI and what is not. AI text shows up a different color, but disappears once edited. No, I don't think that it is an important feature.
This is why I focused my class around using tools like SoduWrite that integrate into the writing process. The future of AI writing isn't chatbots. They are useful, but the real writing happens in tandem with AI and that doesn't really happen in a chatbot.
This is also why I take a structured approach. I never talk to ChatGPT like a person, and I think it handles structured content better ... well, so do humans, but we usually ignore that.
This sounds like the way forward. Hadn’t heard of SoduWrite, thanks for sharing that. Took a look at the website and looks pretty interesting.
What has your students’ experience of their use of it been? Do you have a specific way that you suggest they use it?
Also curious if there is a way to track what is original student writing without AI and where there has been AI input. And if you think that is an important feature.
I am a higher ed teacher in the field of design (primarily graphic design). Hence tools like Adobe Firefly are more relevant than ChatGPT to me and my learners, but I have actually used SudoWrite quite extensively and agree with @LanceCummings.
The short answer is that there is no reliable way to tag, identify or disentangle what is AI and what is human input in a final creative work, viewed in isolation, as a finished product.
However, I f we observe and document the process that lead to the final product, then we can not only validate it, we can coach that process, which in my view was the real goal.
In regard to how AI can break the academic integrity of simply asking knowledge based questions, I have been seeing educators employing practices like - “put this question to ChatGPT, quote the response, now critique that response”. I think that’s really clever, but you can still have a more intricate prompt, or series of them, fabricating the entire thing.
In the end, the assessor still needs to evidence of thinking & understanding in that reflection. These tools aren’t great at that part, because they do neither, but sometimes the response will be indistinguishable from it.
So we experimented with using in multiple ways. Each week, we used a different aspect of the tool or changed the settings in specific ways. Here are few thoughts I had after the class.
https://www.isophist.com/p/4-things-my-students-told-me-about-using-ai-in-my-storytelling-class-a521d04637a2
It doesn't really track what is AI and what is not. AI text shows up a different color, but disappears once edited. No, I don't think that it is an important feature.
100% valid. People think "Clippy" when they should be thinking "Hal."