January 25, 2023
Manila – The general public, and academia in particular, have recently faced shock and awe over their newest challenge: artificial intelligence (AI). The issue began when a faculty member at the University of the Philippines (UP) posted a student’s rambling essay on social media, to which he expressed suspicion that AI may have been used. rice field.
The post prompted some UP faculty to call for a review of state university policies regarding academic integrity, including the use or misuse of AI to meet course requirements. A faculty member of UP Diliman’s AI program “condemns the misrepresentation of AI artifacts as valid academic research,” while banning the use of technology to “improve and encourage student learning.” promoted. A statement from the faculty states: However, we should encourage the use of AI tools to enhance and facilitate student learning. “
In my view, the enemy is neither machines nor the latest technology, but individuals who refuse to think for themselves. Despite the potential dangers of this app, a far more dangerous scenario is a social or political body made up of ignorant members.
Instead of shying away from ChatGPT, Professor Ramon Guillermo has done something pretty cool in my opinion. He pulled the app into the conversation. The same was true for Professor Randy David. Not only did he download the app, but he also tested its “intelligence”. his verdict? “While it involved a clear attempt at embellishment, the poem I inspired (about a gray morning and the calmness of a forest) became monotonous and formulaic.” and cons) were too general, as if they were trying to expand the headline of a Wikipedia entry, but the outlines (on globalization concepts) were very helpful, at least on this topic. This is perhaps a way of reusing tools like this, using it to draw your own thoughts on a particular subject, and the possibilities that a blank page often provokes. It’s a way out of some barren object fixation.” (“AI and Educational Challenges,” Public Lives, 1/22/23).
I would like the UP Diliman AI Program to have an open forum to discuss the use of AI and its impact on academic issues, and to have peers educate students on the proper use of AI tools and incorporate them into their courses. I agree to recommend. UP also needs to revisit its definition of academic honesty to include AI. Also, class requirements should be improved to include more critical and detailed thinking. Of the four recommendations, the most important is the final one, which consists of three elements. This means improving academic requirements to include deeper critical thinking, academic discourse, and sound judgment.
German philosopher Immanuel Kant established three rules of thought in his book Critique of Judgment (1790). The first rule is sapere aude or dare to know. This means that we must have the courage and audacity to use our powers of reason. The second rule refers to empathy or human solidarity. When we think of ourselves, we must also think of others. The final rule means that we must think and use reason in a consistent way, not only in our personal aspects, but also in an international or universal sense.
Internalizing these three rules, I believe, creates a spark of critical thinking and ultimately academic discourse and reflection that leads to fair, rational, and sound judgment.
Professor John Rawls continues Kant’s tradition in his Theory of Justice (1971). In addition to thinking for himself and on behalf of others, Kant consistently advanced a mindset or thought challenge that eliminated accidental or historical labels. This is no longer critical, it is a higher order of thinking, something we need not only as individuals but as citizens of a rapidly changing world.
So no matter how awesome, fast, and powerful these latest apps and technologies are, as long as we use our brains, use our reason to the fullest, and think for ourselves, machines will never be able to overwhelm or outmaneuver us. It is my fervent claim that it will never We. In fact, I repeat, we are not against machines. How could a mere creature overwhelm its creator? Machines are not the enemy. The other person doesn’t think. Our enemies are laziness, cowardice, indifference, pride, prejudice, and misplaced arrogance.
Jose Mario D. De Vega is Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Philosophy and Humanities at the National University Faculty of Education, Arts and Sciences.