love the emily poem. AI on the other hand is like reading a text book of standardized definitions forever stuck in junior high. I couldnt see any reason to use it except to make standardized lists. Which I do for introductory materials on color theory. But find my compilations much better than theirs.
It’s a stretch to fit the bot in the same world with poetry. I’m not sure sentiment analysis is going to be worth the effort and, as you say, could be even worse than doing nothing at all. I need to see if it has any potential value for students if it is used to generate questions. I also keep in mind that the bot is in its infancy. It may be fully grown at two, however. If it can “assist” students who are in the circumstances I was in as a youngster, I’d like to try. I think it would have helped me, but it’s so fragile and unpredictable. I’m with you--not hopeful.
I have been following your examination of it. which has been thoroughly interesting to watch. I appreciate your doing (for us all, so----- I shouldnt have to... )
Thanks! I appreciate the feedback. I’ve been thinking about your use of the bot to generate standardized lists for introductory materials on color theory and considered emailing you. I’m curious to learn more about the output you want from the bot in the instance you cite. What words or phases might be on such an introductory list? I’m wondering because content area reading orthodoxy has long wisely advised subject matter teachers to directly teach vocabulary central to the concepts developed in the reading assignment. I think the bot might be of use, but I have doubts for a reason you put your finger on: A human expert with deep knowledge of a topic can probably create better compilations of terms than a conventional AI any time. So this planning task may not be a candidate for the bot to do an unsupervised instructional design compilation. It may require human intelligence.
love the emily poem. AI on the other hand is like reading a text book of standardized definitions forever stuck in junior high. I couldnt see any reason to use it except to make standardized lists. Which I do for introductory materials on color theory. But find my compilations much better than theirs.
It’s a stretch to fit the bot in the same world with poetry. I’m not sure sentiment analysis is going to be worth the effort and, as you say, could be even worse than doing nothing at all. I need to see if it has any potential value for students if it is used to generate questions. I also keep in mind that the bot is in its infancy. It may be fully grown at two, however. If it can “assist” students who are in the circumstances I was in as a youngster, I’d like to try. I think it would have helped me, but it’s so fragile and unpredictable. I’m with you--not hopeful.
I have been following your examination of it. which has been thoroughly interesting to watch. I appreciate your doing (for us all, so----- I shouldnt have to... )
Thanks! I appreciate the feedback. I’ve been thinking about your use of the bot to generate standardized lists for introductory materials on color theory and considered emailing you. I’m curious to learn more about the output you want from the bot in the instance you cite. What words or phases might be on such an introductory list? I’m wondering because content area reading orthodoxy has long wisely advised subject matter teachers to directly teach vocabulary central to the concepts developed in the reading assignment. I think the bot might be of use, but I have doubts for a reason you put your finger on: A human expert with deep knowledge of a topic can probably create better compilations of terms than a conventional AI any time. So this planning task may not be a candidate for the bot to do an unsupervised instructional design compilation. It may require human intelligence.