The great disrupters
Christopher S. Tang says artificial intelligence apps such as ChatGPT should not be banned from schools and universities but embraced as learning tools
Students can now use generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools such as ChatGPT to complete their assignments, from essays and presentation slides to computing codes and maths problems. I cannot help but wonder if my days as an educator are numbered. I am shocked and awed by the ease of use and capability of these generative AI tools, which use large language models to understand and respond to questions, generating humanlike responses.
ChatGPT took the world by storm with more than 100 million users just two months after its launch, making it the fastest-growing consumer app ever. It can quickly answer questions, write essays and poems, and even generate computer code.
ChatGPT and other AI tools enable users to accomplish tasks in minutes – feats previously unimaginable. Dall-E can create realistic images and art from a description in natural language, Beautiful.ai can help prepare professionally designed slides, ChatPDF allows you to upload a PDF and ask for a summary, and Lateral can read multiple articles and generate a summary in minutes.
For students, these generative AI tools are a godsend. But educational institutions have legitimate concerns. If students submit AI-generated work, there is a risk of cheating and plagiarism. There is also a fear that students may lose their ability to think creatively and independently. Faced with concerns about the use of generative AI tools, universities in Hong Kong have adopted different stances. Some, such as the University of Hong Kong, announced a temporary ban for students. Others, like the University of Science and Technology, allow staff to create their own guidelines.
Banning ChatGPT in universities is unlikely to be effective as students will continue to explore these AI tools. Universities can use tools such as GPTZero to detect AI-generated writing, but this kind of cat-and-mouse game is unproductive. These detection tools are not always accurate, and students can fool the system by making minor edits or using other AI tools to paraphrase passages.
Instead of banning ChatGPT, students would be better served if universities embrace it as a teaching aid to spark creativity, support personalised learning and stimulate engagement.
It can be a muse to generate prompts that inspire students to develop their creative ideas. Imagegeneration tools such as Dall-E or Midjourney can enable students who cannot draw well to develop creative artwork.
Students learn concepts at different speeds and in different ways. ChatGPT is great for generating additional examples and analogies to help students understand concepts better.
In many cases, homework follows a traditional question and answer format that some find dull. To engage them without sacrificing learning, I ask students to use ChatGPT to answer my assigned questions that involve calculations. They are likely to do so anyway.
Then I ask them to evaluate the generated solution for correctness of approach and solutions, grading their reports. By asking students to play instructor and grade ChatGPT’s answers, which may be incorrect, they can be more engaged in learning.
Incorporating AI tools into teaching can motivate students to learn. More importantly, it prepares them to work with AI tools.
Companies have begun to use generative AI tools to take over human tasks. One research study suggests some 80 per cent of the US workforce could have at least 10 per cent of their tasks affected by the introduction of ChatGPT, while about 19 per cent may see at least 50 per cent of their tasks affected.
Another study found that jobs in agriculture, mining and manufacturing are the least exposed to generative AI, with information processing jobs the most exposed because the programming and writing skills required are a closer match for ChatGPT’s capabilities. Goldman Sachs estimates generative AI tools could drive a 7 per cent, or almost US$7 trillion, increase in the global economy and lift productivity growth by 1.5 percentage points by 2033.
Because ChatGPT responds in natural language, it can potentially provide financial advice on saving and spending. In the United States, Morgan Stanley has begun using chatbots powered by OpenAI – the company behind ChatGPT – to organise its wealth management database. The World Economic Forum predicts that, by 2027, 23 per cent of jobs in China’s financial sector will be replaced by AI.
Besides the information processing industries that include the financial sector, the publishing industry will also be affected by ChatGPT because it can generate humanlike text in a conversational context with near-perfect prose. Media outlets such as Business Insider, CNET and CNBC have all used ChatGPT to write news stories.
Generative AI tools, while far from perfect, are disruptive. They can help us and our students become more productive and create new value for society. Teaching alongside ChatGPT requires us to change our pedagogics. This can be challenging, but we cannot afford to make the mistake of banning these powerful learning tools.