You Were Supposed to Be this Colossus

So I thought I'd give ChatGPT a shot at the whole miracle pill thing.

This is what I got:

The phrase "miracle pill with the chocolate coating" is typically used metaphorically and isn’t tied to a specific, real-world product. It usually refers to:

1. A Difficult Truth or Hard Solution Made Easier to Accept

Much like how medicine is sometimes coated in chocolate or sugar to make it more palatable, the “miracle pill with the chocolate coating” represents a tough but necessary remedy or truth that’s been made easier to swallow—often in the form of a persuasive message, attractive packaging, or emotional appeal.

2. Marketing Gimmick

In marketing or self-help contexts, this phrase can point to a too-good-to-be-true solution—a product or idea that promises miraculous results, dressed up in appealing language or visuals to get people to buy in without question. It’s the kind of pitch that sounds irresistible, but the “miracle” often doesn’t live up to the hype.

3. Pop Culture or Satirical Usage

It has also been used in pop culture (e.g., in movies, books, or songs) to satirize consumer culture, quick-fix mentalities, or the way society seeks instant gratification.

If you’re referring to a specific product, book, ad, or quote, feel free to give more context, and I’ll pinpoint it more precisely.

(Emphasis mine.)

I have to give *you* context, ChatGPT? That's cheating. You know it's been used in pop culture, so explore a little bit more. You were supposed to be this colossus; this great legendary thing, and yet he gains.

Sure, I understand the LLM concept that the more I put in, the more I get. But it's interesting that ChatGPT just comes up with these generalities. OK, so it's been used in pop cultre. You can't give me any examples? I don't understand why.

Gorbachev Sings Tractors! Turnips! Buttocks! [Send]

I keep seeing this ad, or facsimiles thereof, on Facebook:

I get it: Generative AI is the neat new toy. And maybe it has its place in the writer's toolkit.

But seriously? I know this is marketing flim-flam, but anyone who replies at length to an email in "five seconds" using AI did *not* read what the AI produced before they hit send. AI probably sent this to your client, dude:

Gorbachev sings tractors! Turnips! Buttocks!

And I have to wonder how your client will react if they discover a human isn't actually reading neither their email nor the response the gen AI sent. I know they're not necessarily happy about it at Northwestern, where a student wants her tuition money back after a professor used ChatGPT to generate feedback in a class that explicitly banned AI use. (Newsweek refers to the school as both Northwestern and Northeastern in the article, so maybe it was written by AI as well.)

But ChatGPT's Got A New Hat!

 I believe this is fundamentally true.

But, as a friend pointed out when I posted this on Facebook:

How the average person will react, reading this:

Will the Real Brian Davidson Stand Up?

News item: ChatGPT hallucinates that a Norwegian man was guilty of killing his two boys.

From the story:

Mr Holmen was given the false information after he used ChatGPT to search for: "Who is Arve Hjalmar Holmen?"

The response he got from ChatGPT included: "Arve Hjalmar Holmen is a Norwegian individual who gained attention due to a tragic event.

"He was the father of two young boys, aged 7 and 10, who were tragically found dead in a pond near their home in Trondheim, Norway, in December 2020."

Mr Holmen said the chatbot got their age gap roughly right, suggesting it did have some accurate information about him.

I wondered, if course, if there were someone with a similar name who had indeed been involved in a similar crime, but searched using his full name now bring up hundreds of versions of the same ChatGPT story, so my assumpiton -- and it could be wrong -- is that no such crime exists in connection with the guy's name. The intelligence seems to have been hallucinating.

I thought I'd try the same thing to see what ChatGPT could find -- or hallucinate -- on me. Here's the first try:

I can't vouch for everything here, but it seems accurate.

I thought I'd better narrow the search, seeing as there is a prominent person with my name. Here's the second try:

Here, I start to show up, but barely. I am indeed an online adjunct instructor as mentioned, but the rest of the information ChatGPT presents here doesn't apply to me.

There is a Brian Davidson who country dances, so that appears to be true. He may also be associated with the TikTok account.

And there is a Brian Davidson who is a school district administrator, but he's in Kennewick, Washington -- my request on "Idaho" should have filtered him out.

Here's for the third try:

This, I have to say, is accurate, though not current.

I was Scoutmaster, but no longer. And I do recall asking the question regarding John Adams Parkway on a city Facebook post.

So while ChatGPT isn't hallucinating at all in these three attempts, it took a bit of work to narrow the search down to me, and what information is presented is accurate if not current, though woefully incomplete. The incompleteness is likely due to me not commenting much on my full-time job.

Something else I just thought of: I'm surprised the LLM didn't find the other Brian Davidson who's also local, with a criminal record. Maybe that's a sign those records are still in areas the makers of these LLM can't scrape. I know he exists because I've met him, and had his reputation follow me when I was renewing my drivers license and the police showed up, looked at me, and said, "Oh, that's not him."

So can we trust large language whatsises to produce the truth? Maybe. But clearly what the engines produce should not be taken at face value.

I'm going to share this with my students.

"Writing is How We Understand Uniquely"

I want to write about artificial intelligence, or, more specifically, about large language models such as ChatGPT and the like. But first, I’m going to write about Disney animator Milt Kahl. The reasons for this, I hope, will be clear.

Affectionately known as one of Disney’s “Nine Old Men,” Kahl is considered the animator’s animator, known for his skill in drawing fluid two-dimensional characters of the like of Shere Khan from The Jungle Book, Little John from Robin Hood, and Tigger from Disney’s Winnie the Pooh stories from the 1960s and 1970s.

He developed signature animations without the use of human models because he wanted to animate how the unique drawn figure would move, not as a model would imagine them moving. He’s known for the Kahl “head swaggle,” seen in the likes of Shere Khan and Edgar, the scheming butler from The Aristocats, to show off his ability to maintain head shape and body weight and positioning throughout the complex animation.

YouTuber A Humble Professor, an admirer of “animation, film, and comics,” analyzes scenes from 1977’s “The Rescuers,” for which Kahl was the directing animator. The professor focuses on animation of Madame Medusa, the film’s primary protagonist: a vain, vile woman of seemingly humble means in New York City who longs for her dreams of wealth to be realized through the discovery of a diamond long-lost in pirate treasure. The professor discusses rough animation of one scene: “Despite how rough these are, Medusa’s character shines right through them. We can really feel her frustration she feels in the scene and we can also see how her pear-shaped body influences how she sits down and scoots the stool.”

In other words, while Kahl could have used human models, or relied on past animation success (which he did with the head swaggle) he also realized that good character animation relied on how each unique character moved and talked and walked and, in the case of Madame Medusa, shrieked and climbed up on a stool and gathered her skirts when Bernard, a hero mouse in the film, arrived, spat out by one of her pet alligators after she whopped it on the head with her walking stick.

Kahl helped Medusa become a standout character because, through long effort and practice, he figured out how she looked and walked.

Uniquely.

Now let’s get back to Chat GPT and the like.

Essayist Evan Puschak, narrating a video essay called “The Real Danger of ChatGPT” at Nerdwriter1, says “Language is how human beings understand themselves and the world. But writing is how we understand uniquely. Not to write is to live according to the language of others, or worse, to live through edits, tweaks, and embellishments to language generated by an overconfident AI chatbot.”

Let me re-emphasize what Puschak says: Writing is how we understand uniquely. Not through the language of others, but through our own language and understanding.

That, I believe, is what large language models threaten to remove from us. Artificial intelligence will win out not because it develops the ability to think like humans, but because it will entice humanity with the expeditiousness that only results in humans accepting writing like an algorithm thinks they should is good enough.

Large language models present the world of writing with its own calculator moment and we as writers, educators, and students have to figure out how much we’re willing to give up for the ease of what this new calculator offers.

This is not to say that the likes of ChatGPT are bad in every way. Like any other tool, large language models can and should have their uses. The danger lies in confronting every writing problem as a nail, and using large language models as the ubiquitous hammer.

For every student and teacher who recognizes ChatGPT is a valuable tool for outlining, for brainstorming and the like, there is a student who takes the large language model shortcut and submits artificially-written work and fails classes because of it. Just this year I saw a student who was writing passable essays and commentary as an English learner succumb to the promise of ChatGPT – once, then again on a major assignment after being warned about the first offence; a semester of effort turn into failure in only a matter of days. My colleagues all share similar tales of woe. I can often hear my wife, who also teaches English, ranting in the next room in our basement as she finds another student who thought artificial intelligence was their best writing friend.

And I feel like a failure to him: Should I have done more to warn my students about the pitfalls of AI? Did I miss AI on previous assignments and not nip the temptation in the bud earlier, so his confidence built in the tool he was using? Is the course itself – its design out of my hands and in those of a committee trying their best – flawed? Is my teaching too lackadaisical?

I don’t know. But it’s hard to place all the blame on the student when the solution to a writing problem seems so clear and easily accessible – and as a savings of time.

How do I help my students hone their ability to understand uniquely the world they live in, rather than – if you can bear another metaphor – exchange it all for a mess of pottage?

Or should I, as some commenters on large language model-adjacent videos I’ve watched, just surrender because AI is only going to get better and become more human and more undetectable?

I’ve piled on the questions here. Let’s go find some answers.

Visualizing Artificial Intelligence's Shortcomings

Though this fellow talks about the advantages and disadvantages of artificial intelligence, specificallly ChatGPT, in a programming context, what he says has wide application as we try to figur eout how to use AI in English composition and the pitfalls it can present to our students.

The crux of his argument is that ChatGPT has helped him bridge small knowledge gaps, but poses problems when he relies on it to help him bridge larger gaps in his knowledge and experience.

First, he says through judicious use of ChatGPT, he's been able to unlock "skills and opportunities that might not have been possible without it." He quickly learned that when he encountered a gap in his programming knowledge, ChatGPT was a quick way to get hints on how to fill the gaps. The AI hints also prompted him to learn more to fill in the gaps he noticed in his knowledge. The hints from ChatGPT worked in tandem with the knowledge and experience he already has as a programmer to fill in those gaps: He could see how ChatGPT's suggestions worked.

So, good use of AI here, which he illustrates thus:

He adds: "You might know most of what you need to build something or achieve some task, but maybe there is some part you are lacking that completely blocks you from getting it done. ChatGPT can help break through those barriers quickly and poit you in the direction you need to go."

He goes on to say: "Where I think it is not as healthy is where you are relying on it to substitute for large gaps in knowledge."

He illustrates these "traps" as follows:

When confronted with a programming problem he had some familiarity with but not near enough knowledge to tackle, he presented the problem to ChatGPT -- which provided a solution that didn't work. When he "pressed" ChatGPT that the provided solution didn't work, the AI suggested a different approach that would have meant sweeping changes in the overall program and customer interface.

It was then he realized he had more context for the problem and impact of the suggested solutions than ChatGPT had. He set to work without AI and found a solution that worked without the sweeping changes ChatGPT suggested. He asked ChatGPT about the solution he came up with, and asked why the AI didn't come up with the idea: "It said essentially that my approach is tailored to this specific situation, whereas ChatGPT was generally going to go for a more general solution."

"Having context of the problem and the system in general allows you to search for solutions where a coding assistant might miss them," he adds.

His experience has application to use of AI in English composition. We have artificial intelligence assistants in place already (spellcheck, Grammarly, predictive text) that can help us fill in the little gaps. Often enough as we use these assistants, we decide it's easier to learn the logic behind the suggestions and get things right the first time. I used to misspell antenna on a consitent basis, with spellcheck helping me out. It wasn't until I wrote the word out a hundred times longhand that I trained my brain to spell the word correctly. So using these simple AI tools to help us fill these little gaps is useful, and leads us to learn so we avoid making the mistakes in the first place.

When it comes to using AI to write outlines, or to help brainstorm, I see that as an acceptable application. We still have to look at the outline and see how it works with the assignment requirements, or look at the brainstorm suggestions to see what makes sense in context. But when we or our students rely on artificial intelligence to bridge bigger gaps in our knowledge, we see ChatGPT and the like stumble, and often stumble bigly. Even worse -- relying on AI to fill those larger writing gaps robs us of creating more elegant solutions we could come up with if we put in the effort ourselves. But that means researching, vetting the research, brainstorming and outlining and writing and revising on our own. That initially can take a lot of time, and maybe we don't have the time. But if we rely on AI as a time boost, we lose in the learning department. We don't become better writers, who become more familiar with common pitfalls and problems and solutions and aren't able to recreate them on our own.

Kudos to YouTuber Joshua Morony for this content, and inspiration as I look to fill my tiny knowledge gaps as I try to help my students -- and myself -- avoid those big traps.

Let's Chat About ChatGPT, Part 2

You may recall an announcement I posted exactly one month ago about ChatGPT, the artificial intelligence writing engine that's been making waves in all sorts of circles, particularly in academia.

My wife and I have had some discussions about ChatGPT in the last month, and I've spent some time playing around with it. I have come to this conclusion: ChatGPT is definitely a tool writers should add to their kit of tools, but, like a hammer, it's not a tool that should be overused.

Here's how I see ChatGPT as being useful to you as we move forward through the rest of the semester.

You've settled on your topic for our last paper. Maybe you're going to write about a problem that you think needs to be solved. Or you're going to present to us an item you want to purchase, but you're not sure which model or from which company you want to buy it, so you're going to explore the pros and cons of a handful of models.

Let's get more specific: Let's say I want to write a paper on a problem I have right now: How to store all the books my wife and I have accumulated over the years. This is a big problem in our house, as you can see:

How can I solve the problem of too many books, not enough shelves?

Let's ask ChatGPT:

As you can see, I asked ChatGPT the following question: "I have a lot of books at home, more books than I can fit on my shelves. What's the best way to store books?"

ChatGPT's response:

"There are several ways to store books when you have more books than shelf space:

1 .Consider using bookcases with adjustable shelves. This can allow you to make more space for larger books or other items, while still accommodating smaller books on the same shelves.

2 .Invest in vertical storage solutions such as bookends or bookshelves that utilize vertical space. You can use these to store books on top of your current bookcases or on other surfaces like tables and desks.

3. Use stackable storage boxes. You can purchase storage boxes that are specifically designed for books or use any sturdy box that is large enough to accommodate your books. Label each box with the contents, so you can easily find what you need when you want to read a specific book.

4. Consider downsizing your collection. If you have books that you haven't read in a long time or don't plan to read again, consider donating them to a library or a charity.

5. Store books in other areas of your home, such as under the bed, in closets, or in unused storage space.

6. Store books in a climate-controlled environment to protect them from humidity, which can damage pages and bindings over time.

Remember to handle your books with care to protect them from damage. Store them upright to keep their spines straight, and avoid stacking books too high, as this can cause them to become damaged or warped."

In less then a minute, ChatGPT has offered me six solutions to my problem, along with a bit of advice on storing books in a way to prevent them from being damaged.

So here's ChatGPT helping me out. I only need three solutions for the paper I'm writing, so now I get to pick which ones to look at.

Or let's say I need to pick out a 3-D printer. (A friend of my wife has bought her first 3-D printer, so it's only a matter of time before my wife, who loves this kind of creativity, decides she wants one of her own, so I'd better get on top of it.)

So, let's take the question to ChatGPT:

My question: What's the best 3-D printer to buy?

ChatGPT's response:

The best 3D printer to buy depends on your specific needs and budget. Here are some factors to consider when choosing a 3D printer:

Price: 3D printers can range in price from a few hundred to several thousand dollars. Determine your budget and look for models within that range.

Print Quality: Look for a printer with high print resolution and accuracy. This will ensure that your prints come out looking detailed and precise.

Print Volume: Consider the size of the objects you plan to print. Choose a printer with a large enough print volume to accommodate your needs.

Ease of Use: Look for a printer with user-friendly software and intuitive controls. This will make it easier for you to start printing right away.

Reliability: Look for a printer with good reviews and a proven track record of reliability. A reliable printer will require less maintenance and have fewer issues over time.

Based on these factors, some popular 3D printers include:

Prusa i3 MK3S+: This printer has a reputation for high print quality and accuracy, and it offers a large print volume.

Creality Ender 3: This is an affordable option that offers good print quality and a large community of users for support.

Ultimaker S5: This printer is a more expensive option but offers high-quality prints and a large build volume.

Formlabs Form 3: This is a resin-based printer that offers high accuracy and detail, but it is more expensive than most FDM (Fused Deposition Modeling) printers.

Ultimately, the best 3D printer for you will depend on your specific needs and budget, as well as your skill level and experience with 3D printing. It's a good idea to read reviews and do some research before making a purchase to ensure that you choose a printer that will meet your needs and expectations.

Here are some questions to ponder:

Q: By using ChatGPT, have I cheated?

A: No. No more than if I had used any ordinary web browser to do my searches.

Q: Should I take what ChatGPT says at face value? In other words, can ChatGPT be trusted to give accurate answers?

A: Also no. As with any ordinary search in a web browser, it's up to me, the questioner, to do additional research and to find out, for example, what exactly "vertical storage solutions" are when it comes to taming our book collection, or whether any of the 3-D printers ChatGPT recommended is in my budget range. Or even if my wife is all that interested to get a 3-D printer in the first place.

What I'm saying is this: As you begin working on your next paper, don't discount using ChatGPT to help you explore solutions, or pros or cons. Its just like plugging your questions into a web browser.

Where would use of ChatGPT cross the line into cheating? In my mind, if you take what ChatGPT produces and turn it in as your own work, that's cheating. Will I detect it? Maybe. Or maybe not. Ultimately, it's up to you to decide how much effort you want to put into your work. But I see nothing wrong with using ChatGPT and similar AI engines as a springboard to help you with your thinking.

I'd be interested to see what you think.

ChatGPT: THBBBBTTTT! THRRPTTTT!!!!

This is how I've felt, the last few weeks.

And yes, maybe with two posts in a row about ChatGPT, I'm adding in a small way to the THRRPTTTTing of the Internet on the subject. But lordy there are a *lot* of people really enamored with this thing, even when they don't quite know what it is.

I watched a few days ago a three-minute long YouTube video by some ChatGPT acolyte showing us how to "install the app" on our desktop computers.

I  mean, it was a three-minute convoluted video showing how to make a desktop link to the website; that's all it was. BUT IT'S CHATGPT and thus AMAZING and even if we DON'T KNOW how or why to actually use it, we HAVE to get on the BANDWAGON RIGHT NOW.

I've tried joining a few ChatGPT-related Facebook groups, and each time it's proved to be a grave mistake, as the ChatGPT-ing of everything is worse than the Bernie-in-Mittening that The Oatmeal illustrates above.

If I hear "ChatGPT" and "disrupt" used together in a sentence one more time, I'm going to go bonkers. Because so far the hype is really outpacing everything else. Because I've watched AirBnb "disrupt" the hotel industry to the point people are going back to hotels because the average AirBnb host is adding on so many fees that hotels are far cheaper and much more convenient to use. ChatGPT may well find its place, but right now it's in the IT'S EVERYWHERE phase of Internet gibbering. I'm going to wait for the dust to settle a little bit. then maybe find a group that's a little less breathless about the thing.

ChatGPT: A Tool, not A Crutch

NOTE: This is an announcement I just shared with my online English students, just so you know the audience.

I'm sure most of you have heard talk of ChatGPT, which in its own words describes itself thus:

"ChatGPT is an AI language model developed by OpenAI, which is capable of generating human-like text based on the input it is given. The model is trained on a large corpus of text data and can generate responses to questions, summarize long texts, write stories and much more. It is often used in conversational AI applications to simulate a human-like conversation with users."

In other words (and per the Mashable story linked above) it's an online service that we can use to write love letters, help debug computer code and even write essays.

I've played around with it a bit myself, and have used it to write an unsourced informative essay, some rather convincing poems in the style of e.e. cummings, and a rather terrible poems in the style of Edgar Lee Masters. I've also used new services that are popping up to help others detect text written by artificial intelligence.

I'm also aware of a professor locally who has had students write an essay using ChatGPT and then develop strategies to combat detection by services meant to identify "machine-written" language in comparison to "human-written" language.

A few of you have sent me articles about ChatGPT, so I'd be a fool to think the majority of you haven't heard of it -- as it's also been given a fair amount of press lately.

What do I *think* about ChatGPT, and its potential uses, inside and outside the classroom?

I'll be honest, the jury is still out.

The knee-jerk reaction is to say using such services is cheating. And I suppose, in a way, it is. I was able to generate the essay linked above in only about twenty minutes. As I explain in my blog post, it's not perfect. But, by Grabthar's hammer Links to an external site., what a time-savings.

Similar debates about "cheating" cropped up when the calculator was invented, and revived again when graphing calculators entered the scene, making it much easier for morons like me to "do math," even though that's something I avoid doing as much as humanly possible.

Do I want to see machine-generated text pop up in class?

Probably the wrong question.

Have I already seen machine-generated text pop up in class and missed it?

That's a better question.

Understand I'm not lobbing accusations at anyone in this course. I am not running your text through AI-detection websites. Artificially-created writing could actually be an important step forward in many industries, if we learn how to use and master it correctly. I've read enough poorly-written instructions to know that if there's a better way to make better instructions out there, we ought to be taking advantage of the technological developments coming our way.

But let me share this:

In 2016, comedienne Carol Burnett published "In Such Good Company," a memoir of eleven years' involvement in the Carol Burnett Show, a comedy-music variety show that Americans of a certain age are likely familiar with. She records a conversation with Larry Gelbart, a well-known television writer of the same vintage:

Burnett: I don't know, but when I watch a comedy show on TV today, I know exactly what's coming as far as the writing goes. No surprises. No originality. Usually, it's the 'setup' first, and then comes the obvious joke, and then you hear that awful laugh track. It's as if all the shows are alike and repeating themselves.

Gelbart: I think it's because most of the writers today grew up watching television. That was their childhood, so they're writing about life once removed.

Burnett: What do you mean?

Gelbart: They never played stickball in the street.

Calculators are great for getting the correct answer. But the Cs and Ds I got in algebra belie the fact that I can use calculators to get the correct answer almost every time. I remain terrible at math because I never had the discipline to sit down and practice running through equations enough time to really understand what I was doing.

ChatGPT may indeed be great for generating text, text likely good enough as the artificial intelligence learns more to fool us poor English instructors into thinking our students are brilliant (and, based on your change essays, you are that). But such tools, as Gelbart says, represent learning the art of writing "once removed." If we allow ChatGPT to produce words for us without pausing long enough to consider how the words were put together and how we could put the words together on our own, we are writing "once removed." We're not learning a skill. If we don't sit down with a blank page, with our research by our side, with ideas bubbling in our head, waiting to come out onto paper or the screen, we're not playing stickball in the street.

ChatGPT is a tool, and one that should not be dismissed as useless or morally suspect. But at the same time, it should not become a crutch, a substitute for learning.