O
ver
the
past
few
months,
ChatGPT
has
dominated
the
conversation around artificial
intelligence
and
machine
learning. The model comes
close to, and in some cases
surpasses,
the
capabilities
of humans to communicate
and
produce
high-quality
writing. Much of the debate
around ChatGPT is focused on
how it will impact university
students and professors. With
the benefits of AI, though,
come the risk that ChatGPT
will be used for cheating —
something
professors
and
University administrators are
already moving to address. It
is incumbent on the University
of Michigan to take steps
now to maintain the ability of
professors to evaluate students,
while ensuring that graduates
are
not
left
behind
their
AI-familiar peers.
It should be noted
that ChatGPT has many
practical uses for both
students and instructors
that
remain
outside
the realm of cheating.
As the model is still
occasionally
prone
to
giving incorrect answers
to tests of reasoning,
tasking
students
to
correct
the
mistakes
made by ChatGPT allows
them
to
understand
common errors that even
a chatbot may make.
Students
can
also
use ChatGPT to better
comprehend
their
assignments.
When
it
comes to long, dense
readings where didactic
jargon
abounds,
the
chatbot
can
help
summarize
and
explain
concepts to the student. This
can also be applied to code,
where
a
student
can
ask
ChatGPT to explain a certain
chunk of code or where an
error was made.
ChatGPT’s usefulness is not
limited to tests of reason or
code; it can also be a helpful
resource
for
writing
and
discussion without doing all
the student’s work. OpenAI’s
essay outline feature provides
topics
of
discussion
and
counterargument,
as
well
as a structure a student may
not consider. Simply chatting
with the bot can even act
as a jumping off point for
inspiration and creation. With
ChatGPT’s ability to generate
prompts, debate ideas and give
suggestions, there is certainly
no shortage of positive aspects
to this technology that we can
embrace in the classroom.
Though ChatGPT can be
a helpful tool in assisting
students with their schoolwork,
some of the tasks that it can
help with go beyond assistance,
such as writing full essays
and solving schoolwork. This
capability of ChatGPT creates
complications for professors
to ensure academic integrity
on the assignments they task
students with.
If students misuse ChatGPT
as a means to cheat, rather
than as an educational aid,
the integrity and meaning of
work assigned by professors
can
become
compromised.
ChatGPT, while being a very
valuable
tool
in
learning,
begins to diminish some of
the key aspects of learning by
completing tasks intended to be
completed solely by students.
Alongside
its
ability
to
complete tasks for students,
ChatGPT also creates problems
as a continuously evolving AI
model. Although it is currently
still being officially updated
by its developers, OpenAI’s
goal for the AI in its public
testing is to train it to update
its own policies, making it self-
updating to an extent.
ChatGPT’s
continuous
updates create new problems
for
educational
institutions,
including the University of
Michigan. At the forefront
of these problems is how the
University can keep up with
an AI that is continuously
evolving at a rate that may be
difficult to keep up with. To do
this, changes must be made to
the way classes are structured.
The drawbacks and benefits
of ChatGPT aside, it is clear that
the growth and development
of AI technology is unlikely
to slow down anytime soon.
So, where does that leave
educational institutions, and
more importantly, professors,
for whom the task of genuine
work grows bigger everyday?
Interestingly,
with
the
pandemic
leading
to
an
unprecedented rise in the use
of digital resources inside and
outside the classroom, there is
a belief that people are simply
learning at a slower rate than
before. Although not the most
robust piece of evidence, a
decrease in the average score
of standardized tests since
the start of the COVID-19
pandemic,
and
subsequent
increased
use
of
remote
learning, could be an example
of
the
inverse
relationship
between learning outcomes and
remote learning. Regardless, it
isn’t too far-fetched to suggest
that
an
over-reliance
on
technology and the increased
difficulty
of
professors
to
keep students engaged during
remote learning has led to a
learning loss.
In what could be a pivotal
moment
in
the
education
industry, teachers are being
challenged
to
combat
this
phenomenon while technology,
especially EdTech, grows at
an exponential rate. However,
it is crucial to emphasize
here that there is no one right
solution. Whether instructors
want to incorporate ChatGPT,
and technologies of a similar
ilk, within their syllabi or
discourage their usage, there
are multiple avenues to explore,
each with its own pros and
cons.
We believe that frequent,
low-stakes,
in-person
tests,
in the form of short quizzes
or assignments at the end of
every class or week is a good
way to keep students in the
classroom and attentive.
That way, even if students
are
using
ChatGPT
to
assist them with their
assignments,
they
are
still held responsible for
understanding the most
important
concepts.
Coupling that with courses
that are more discussion
and participation based
might further encourage
students
to
interact
with the material in a
meaningful way.
Furthermore, in order to
harness the advantages of
having such technology at
our disposal, universities
could
consider
having
more
courses
catered
towards the ethics of AI
and AI literacy, as the key
to avoiding the pitfalls of
a resource like ChatGPT is
knowing how to use it. Those
pursuing majors like computer
science could potentially have a
required class addressing such
topics to ensure that colleges
are handing degrees to students
who are not only capable, but
also responsible in the fields in
which this technology is most
prominent.
Regardless of how all the
potential
advantages
and
complications this technology
will bring to the classroom
balance out — or don’t balance
out — the onus of using it
responsibly will be on students.
Software and applications that
can help students sidestep the
honor code or find the easy
way out in a class have always
existed, such as translators
for foreign language classes
or just a simple Google search.
The choice of whether or not to
use them, however, has always
been with students — and that
was true long before ChatGPT.
What it comes down to, as it
always has, is how we want to
shape our educational journey.
AI technology has the ability
to expand our knowledge and
skill sets, but only if we use it
correctly and with integrity.
Regardless of how
all the potential
advantages and
complications this
technology will bring to
the classroom balance
out — or don’t balance
out — the onus of using
it responsibly will be on
students.
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
8 — Wednesday, February 8, 2023
From The Daily: How should we let
ChatGPT change education?
L
ast
Wednesday,
Gov.
Gretchen
Whitmer
endorsed a series of
policy proposals in the first
State of the State address of her
second term. Underlying the
speech, and many of the policy
proposals, was a continued
emphasis on bipartisanship —
that is, on policy expected to
receive support from members
of both parties. Whitmer relied
on bipartisanship during her
first term, when Michigan’s
state legislature was controlled
by Republicans. In her first
term, bipartisanship worked
— it brought about many of
the successes she mentioned
in her speech while bolstering
her
reelection
prospects;
from those successes came
the first Democratic trifecta
since 1982 and a $9.2 billion
budget
surplus.
But,
with
those in hand, Whitmer and
Michigan Democrats must not
waste these increasingly rare
opportunities
(the
surplus
and the majority) on moderate
policies they think will draw in
some bipartisan support.
Whitmer’s first set of policy
proposals, as laid out in the
State of the State, centered
on
supporting
working
Michiganders. It included two
tax cuts, one for the working
poor and one for seniors, and an
endorsement of universal pre-
kindergarten for 4 year olds.
Whitmer began the address
with a swipe at the “retirement
tax,” a 4.25% tax on retirement
savings,
including
pensions,
401(k) plans and IRAs that she
has been denouncing for 12
years. The governor’s office has
estimated this tax cut will cost
the state $350 million to $500
million and will save 700,000
seniors $1,000 a year. This tax
cut, though, will only benefit
seniors and those who have
retirement savings.
In
the
past
40
years,
traditional pension plans — in
which employers save money for
their employees’ retirement —
have been largely replaced with
401(k) accounts, placing the
onus of saving for retirement on
individual workers. At the same
time, the rate of retirement
savings has stagnated for all but
the older generations, leaving
many
younger
generations
underprepared for retirement.
In other words, eliminating the
retirement tax would squander
some of the budget surplus
on
those
fortunate
enough
to have retirement savings.
Instead, funding could be put
toward a safety net for seniors
who lack adequate savings —
something that would benefit
younger generations struggling
to prepare for retirement and
seniors struggling to make ends
meet.
Whitmer
also
endorsed
expanding
the
Working
Families Tax Credit, a state-
level version of the federal
Earned Income Tax Credit,
which allows families with low
incomes to receive a large tax
refund. While Whitmer notes
that
increasing
the
WFTC
would give “$3,000 to 730,000
working people” it is important
to note that the majority of
that — around $2,500 — comes
from the federal government.
In other words, Whitmer’s
proposed policy would increase
the WFTC from around $150 to
$450 and give working families
only a few extra hundred
dollars a year.
Though giving hardworking
families any extra assistance
is a worthy cause, expanding
only the WFTC excludes a
significant portion of families
experiencing
poverty:
those
that do not have income. The
unemployment rate is one of
the strongest correlates with
the poverty rate. Many people
in poverty are not required to
(and therefore do not) file taxes,
because their income is too low.
But the EITC only helps people
who both have an income and
file taxes. It is ironic that, when
speaking on policy intended
to help households in poverty,
Whitmer
decided
to
quote
President Ronald Reagan, who
referred to the EITC as “the
best anti-poverty, the best pro-
family, the best job creation
measure.” It was Reagan and
President Bill Clinton — whose
campaign was quoted later in
the speech — who dismantled
cash welfare, adding in work
requirements
that
virtually
excluded those who could not
find work from receiving aid.
Whitmer’s two main tax
proposals target benefits at
groups that independent voters
might believe deserve them —
the working poor and retirees.
The proposals are moderate,
and Whitmer first endorsed
both of them years ago, when
unified Democratic control of
Michigan seemed impossible.
That is no longer the case.
Democrats have an opportunity
to use their majority and the
budget surplus to build a more
inclusive
social
safety
net
and address social issues that
may be less directly related to
economics.
On the few social issues
Whitmer
did
discuss,
the
Republican
response
was
negative.
When
Whitmer
endorsed
state-subsidized
universal
pre-kindergarten
for 4 year olds, she was met
with
strong
applause
from
her
Democratic
colleagues
and silence from Republicans.
The
same
happened
when
she
touched
on
repealing
Michigan’s
archaic
1931
abortion law (at 27:44) and
expanding the Elliott-Larsen
Civil Rights Act (at 29:28) —
even when framing the latter
issue as a means to bolster job
creation (“bigotry is bad for
business”). These are the sort
of issues Whitmer should be
focusing on: more partisan
policies
that
will
only
be
addressed
when
Democrats
hold power.
To make matters worse, the
Republican response to the
State of the State was quite
negative,
despite
Whitmer
avoiding
overt
partisanship.
House Minority Leader Matt
Hall,
R-Richland
Township,
criticized
the
content
of
Whitmer’s speech, specifically
the lack of attention paid
to infrastructure: “She still
has no real plan to fix the
roads,” Hall said in a press
release.
Whitmer
had
an
entire section of her speech
dedicated to infrastructure, in
which she noted the success
her administration has had in
repairing Michigan roads. Hall
himself has already assembled
a team “to evaluate Republican
losses in November and get the
caucus in a position to regain
the majority.”
In making efforts to appeal
to
Republican
priorities,
Whitmer barely touched on key
Democratic planks, including
issues many young voters came
out to vote for. The phrase
“climate change” was uttered a
total of one time, relegated to a
single paragraph at the very end
of her speech. Whitmer did not
mention her intention to repeal
Michigan’s Right-to-Work law,
something
she
campaigned
on and which has supposedly
been a key priority for state
Democrats in the decade since
its passage. It wasn’t just Right-
to-Work, she avoided workers’
rights issues entirely — even
failing to mention the ongoing
fight over whether Michigan’s
minimum wage would increase
from $10.10 to $13.03 (which
will likely move to the Michigan
Supreme Court). It was the
Republican-led legislature that
adopted a petition initiative to
increase the minimum wage to
$12 by 2022 and then amended
it to push the wage to 2030.
In his response to the State
of the State, Senate Minority
Leader Aric Nesbitt focused
on Whitmer’s apparent lack of
bipartisanship in her first term.
“Time and again, this governor
has vetoed bipartisan proposals
to provide real relief for those
in need,” Nesbitt said. Despite
Whitmer
almost
entirely
avoiding controversial policies,
Nesbitt portrayed Whitmer as
a partisan and hoped that “the
governor will realize that she
was wrong and finally be a part
of bipartisan efforts.”
State Republicans do not
want
to
pass
Whitmer’s
proposals,
as
moderate
as
they may be. If Republicans
wanted to expand the WFTC
or eliminate the pension tax,
they would have done it when
they controlled the legislature.
Today, with thin Democratic
majorities, Republicans see an
opportunity to stall legislation
for two years. They see the
same
thing
Republicans
in
the 117th U.S. Congress saw:
the opportunity to prevent
Democratic
majorities
from
bringing
about
extensive,
meaningful change.
Michigan Democrats have
comparably
slim
majorities
as national Democrats did in
2021. What they don’t have
is a 60% threshold to end
a filibuster; only a simple
majority is required to end
discussion on a particular law.
With a bit of party unity, state
Democrats can pass just about
any piece of legislation they
want, in spite of Republican
obstinance. Democrats need
to act early in the term, before
the
next
election
season,
before contentious, polarizing
national campaigns make their
way to Michigan. They have the
institutional power and money
to legislate on issues voters
waited in lines for — climate
change, labor rights, abortion
rights, gun safety and more —
regardless of how partisan they
may appear. All they need is the
political will.
THE MICHIGAN DAILY
EDITORIAL BOARD
Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
SHANNON STOCKING
AND KATE WEILAND
Co-Editors in Chief
QUIN ZAPOLI AND
JULIAN BARNARD
Editorial Page Editors
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Ammar Ahmad
Julian Barnard
Brandon Cowit
Jess D’Agostino
Ben Davis
Shubhum Giroti
Devon Hesano
Jack Kapcar
Sophia Lehrbaum
Olivia Mouradian
Siddharth Parmar
Rushabh Shah
Zhane Yamin
Nikhil Sharma
Lindsey Spencer
Evan Stern
Anna Trupiano
Jack Tumpowsky
Alex Yee
Quin Zapoli
JULIA VERKLAN
MALONEY AND ZOE
STORER
Managing Editors
In Michigan, bipartisanship
is not the answer
QUIN ZAPOLI
Editorial Page Editor
Opinion
Design by Sara Fang