Institutions that pay millions for an enterprise license for ChatGPT or for consultants to tell them how to reduce costs are wasting much-needed funds at a time when no college or university in the country can afford it.
If socities fund their educational systems to perpetuate the values and structures their leaders desire, then we in the United States are trying to figure out how to create a higher educational system to sustain a global empire. On the one hand, we discovered we needed humans from all over the world as both students and teachers in the educational system and humans from demographic segments the internal empire had treated as colonized subjects. Some of those humans, once active in the educational system, produced ideas and practices which disrupted the external and internal empires. The last few decades have been an attempt to get the benefits of open inquiry for industry and militarism without the attendant societal disruption.
Given the response of the tech barons to the events of 2019 and their antagonism toward universities, I think the events of the last month suggest they are giving up the attempt you mention. Societal disruption seems the inevitable result, and perhaps the purpose, of putting bureaucrats out on the street.
Somebody has to go first. If I were in charge of decision making for any institution, I would not pay a dime for anything AI related. 18 months is not even close to enough time to get teachers on the same page about what AI is likely to be even used for. And most of the students already have access to enough free versions they can generally do what they need. This will be an interesting story to follow but I would think OpenAI should be very careful because if it blows up in their face it will be more difficult for future schools to sign on to something similar. And I agree with you about assessment - what metrics will be used to determine if the experiment is a success? Number of users? Surveys?
I don't think we understand the educational uses of AI well enough to do much more than count who uses it and survey them about how. That's something it would be great if OpenAI would be open about. Maybe CSU made data transparency part of the agreement. I'm not saying it is worth $17M, but it would be worth something. s
If socities fund their educational systems to perpetuate the values and structures their leaders desire, then we in the United States are trying to figure out how to create a higher educational system to sustain a global empire. On the one hand, we discovered we needed humans from all over the world as both students and teachers in the educational system and humans from demographic segments the internal empire had treated as colonized subjects. Some of those humans, once active in the educational system, produced ideas and practices which disrupted the external and internal empires. The last few decades have been an attempt to get the benefits of open inquiry for industry and militarism without the attendant societal disruption.
Given the response of the tech barons to the events of 2019 and their antagonism toward universities, I think the events of the last month suggest they are giving up the attempt you mention. Societal disruption seems the inevitable result, and perhaps the purpose, of putting bureaucrats out on the street.
Somebody has to go first. If I were in charge of decision making for any institution, I would not pay a dime for anything AI related. 18 months is not even close to enough time to get teachers on the same page about what AI is likely to be even used for. And most of the students already have access to enough free versions they can generally do what they need. This will be an interesting story to follow but I would think OpenAI should be very careful because if it blows up in their face it will be more difficult for future schools to sign on to something similar. And I agree with you about assessment - what metrics will be used to determine if the experiment is a success? Number of users? Surveys?
I don't think we understand the educational uses of AI well enough to do much more than count who uses it and survey them about how. That's something it would be great if OpenAI would be open about. Maybe CSU made data transparency part of the agreement. I'm not saying it is worth $17M, but it would be worth something. s
"But is having ChatGPT . . . tell you which pizza places deliver to your dorm room . . . worth $16.9 million plus support and implementation costs?"
Yes.