What I'm I supposed to understand about that:Greg Bernhardt said:
I wroteGreg Bernhardt said:
There's the rub - how to tell the difference, except through performance from exams and essays.jack action said:
Interestingly and coincidentally, there has been a flurry of articles on OpenAI's ChatGPT.jtbell said:
David Herman, The End of High-School English, Dec 9, 2022
Well, apparently even if ChatGPT won't kill college essay, bot- and plagiarism detectors sure will256bits said:
I find this response terrifying. What if I use common sense and the administration doesn't? Plagiarism is supposed to be all about ethics, but there is not a shred of accountability for the administrations misuse of the term or their power. If a student has political views that the staff don't like? Accuses a teacher of (sexual or other) misconduct? Comb their work for three words, and make their lives hell. Do I really need to link to examples of administrative abuse of power?StevieTNZ said:
I believe the purpose of writing an essay is to reflect one's ideas on a topic, as well as demonstrate some proficiency regarding the process. An essay should demonstrate one's ability at critical thinking, depending on the essay.Algr said:
That's a wholly different matter.Algr said:
But if it is ONE'S idea, then why is it so vital to attribute it to someone else? Can you tell me who first explained to you that the Earth was round? Or how multiplication worked? What value to you would it be if you COULD remember such things from your childhood?Astronuc said:
A matter that is more important than anything else in this thread. Why do you think conservatives get such positive responses from voters for attacking academia?Astronuc said:
It is customary when using someone's prior work to properly attribute the work rather than present as one's original thought.Algr said:
My father. We had a globe, maps, and a world atlas.Algr said:
Second grade teacher, but I also used 'cuisenaire rods' to understand addition and multiplication myself.Algr said:
The topic of the thread is ChatGPT and its potential impact of one aspect of education. Start another thread rather than derail this thread.Algr said:
Strange, I can't remember stuff like that. I honestly have no idea where the idea first came from. For me an idea either works or it doesn't, and who first told me about it isn't very relevant.Astronuc said:
If someone were to ask who first noticed that the world/earth was round, I'd probably direct them to a review of that bit of trivia from an encyclopedia, or textbook, or an article from an organization like APS or AIP. However, one might find different perspectives.Algr said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_8
Let us remember where this discussion started:Astronuc said:
"If it is ONE's idea" are the keywords here.Astronuc said:
Why would one do that? Can one provide a viable alternative?jack action said:
Wouldn't the outcome depend on the educational level, e.g., kindergarden, grade school, secondary or high school, college/university? At some point, a student would be expected to be aware of prior work. One should not present the work of others as one's own or original work.jack action said:
It's not because one did the work before you that you didn't do the work. Let's take this example:Astronuc said:
But we also know that:Astronuc said:
Are you saying the work of the Chinese is not original, because they have similar conclusions as the Greeks got? Even though they probably had no clue the Greeks ever existed at that point?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shen_Kuo#Astronomy_and_instruments said:
Well these two look pretty similar. Did APS plagiarism Starchild? Common sense would say no, but that is way more then three words.Astronuc said:
I would say that the point of a research paper is not learning the specific items being researched, but demonstrating that the student can recognize that he/she needs to learn a new skill or subject, and then educate themselves correctly on it by performing research without the assistance of a teacher. (I'd already graduated from college before this occurred to me, btw.)Astronuc said:
I've often found that having to put ideas down in written form forces me to refine my understanding of a topic. I view one of the main purposes of writing essays is to help students learn to think critically. Good students tend to rise to the challenge, but many students give up because it's hard and miss a good learning opportunity.Astronuc said:
Homework problems help students develop and practice problem-solving skills. Writing, similarly, helps students learn how to express complex ideas clearly and effectively. In my first full time job as an engineer, I was surprised by how much writing was required. In my physics class, I require students explain their reasoning on exams and when solving problems. Seeing some of the poor quality writing from these prospective engineers, I think they need as much practice as they can get to avoid looking like illiterate idiots to their future coworkers.Astronuc said:
Of course not, nor did I introduce the matter of ancient Chinese observations. The topic of ancient 'science' is certainly interesting, and thank you for bringing Needham's work to my attention.jack action said:
I'd say you've described much of the writing my students do. ;)StatGuy2000 said:
If ChatGPT pushes us to focus on what really matters in writing, that can only be a good thing.vela said:
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/chatgpt-can-generate-essay-generate-rcna60362
Jungian economics, also known as analytical psychology, is a theory developed by the Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst Carl Jung. This theory attempts to explain economic behavior and decision making by analyzing the psychological motivations and unconscious desires of individuals. While Jungian economics may provide useful insights into human behavior, it is dangerous to a free market system because it ignores the fundamental principles of economics and could lead to government intervention in the market.
One of the key principles of a free market is the idea of consumer sovereignty, which states that consumers should be able to freely choose what they want to buy and at what price. This is important because it allows individuals to make their own decisions about how to allocate their resources and allows the market to respond to their needs and preferences.
However, Jungian economics ignores this principle and instead focuses on the psychological motivations and unconscious desires of consumers. This means that it does not take into account the rational decision making process that drives consumer behavior in a free market. Instead, it suggests that consumers are driven by their unconscious desires and that they make decisions based on these desires rather than on rational calculation.
Furthermore, Jungian economics could also lead to government intervention in the market. This is because it suggests that consumer behavior is driven by unconscious desires and that these desires can be manipulated by outside forces. As a result, governments could use this theory to justify intervening in the market in order to manipulate consumer behavior and achieve certain economic goals.
In conclusion, Jungian economics is dangerous to a free market system because it ignores the fundamental principles of economics and could lead to government intervention in the market. While it may provide useful insights into human behavior, it is important to recognize the limitations of this theory and to avoid relying on it as a guide for economic policy.
Jungian economics, also known as analytical psychology, is a theory developed by the Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst Carl Jung. This theory attempts to explain economic behavior and decision making by analyzing the psychological motivations and unconscious desires of individuals. While Jungian economics may provide useful insights into human behavior, it's dangerous to a free market system because it ignores the fundamental principles of economics and could lead to government intervention in the market, like, totally.
One of the key principles of a free market is the idea of consumer sovereignty, which states that consumers should be able to freely choose what they want to buy and at what price. This is important because it allows individuals to make their own decisions about how to allocate their resources and allows the market to respond to their needs and preferences, duh.
However, Jungian economics ignores this principle and instead focuses on the psychological motivations and unconscious desires of consumers. This means that it doesn't take into account the rational decision making process that drives consumer behavior in a free market. Instead, it suggests that consumers are driven by their unconscious desires and that they make decisions based on these desires rather than on rational calculation, like, totally.
Furthermore, Jungian economics could also lead to government intervention in the market. This is because it suggests that consumer behavior is driven by unconscious desires and that these desires can be manipulated by outside forces. As a result, governments could use this theory to justify intervening in the market in order to manipulate consumer behavior and achieve certain economic goals, like, totally.
In conclusion, Jungian economics is dangerous to a free market system because it ignores the fundamental principles of economics and could lead to government intervention in the market. While it may provide useful insights into human behavior, it's important to recognize the limitations of this theory and to avoid relying on it as a guide for economic policy, like, totally.
There is no wikipedia article for Jungian Economics. The AI has taken maybe three sentences worth of ideas and dragged them out into that essay. As someone who knows nothing about this, I can say that I think that the AI's premise is wrong, but as far as I can tell, it seems to be talking rationally.Pythagorean said:
As far as I can tell I've seen complete communities devotedly believing in far less sophisticated gibberish.Algr said:
I considered it "rational" because IF you accept its assumptions, then the conclusion follows. Those assumptions being:Rive said: