Using CHAPGPT and Rethinking Human Intelligence

You have probably heard of and utilized ChatGPT by this point. Even for those who are accustomed to using AI tools, ChatGPT produced awe. Perhaps it is the vast array of potential uses, accessibility, or usability. In any case, people are frantically trying to determine what it means for them and their companies. Up until now, there have only seemed to be three major responses: ignore, ban (with or without detection), or embrace. The first two are not practicable in the intermediate or long terms, despite being perfectly understandable as short-term reactions. The technology is too strong, too simple to use, and too beneficial to a large number of individuals. 

There are a large number of issues with ChatGPT, including bias and inaccuracy. That is not the topic of this article. These reservations are valid. The main problem, in my opinion, is that a tendency has emerged that is unlikely to abate. Therefore, in the future, we can anticipate that these tools will address or mitigate as many problems as they can while still maintaining the functionality and usability that have shown to be so appealing to so many. 

 

In order to assist us in determining whether ChatGPT authored something, a number of technologies have emerged. Although incredibly helpful, this is really a competition between AIs that create and AIs that can identify creator AIs. In the deep, we observe the same race in action.

The examples I give below may not be as significant as some, but we've been here before. What can we take away from history? 

 

Before typewriters and laptops, learning to write by hand was a subject covered in school. We evaluated pupils based on the legibility of their writing and provided instruction in shorthand and cursive. Without using a computer, I can't recall the last time I typed anything longer than a post-it note. Nowadays, recording speech and editing an AI-generated transcript are more efficient than even typing on a computer. 

The way we create programs has completely altered in the world of coding. In the past, engineers wrote their programs in low-level or assembly languages. Then came libraries, APIs, higher-level languages, and portable open source It.

What conclusions can we draw from these? Jobs evolve, as do the skills required for them. However, despite these significant changes, there is still a need for humans to complete tasks. However, they caused a ton of discomfort in the near term (for example for anyone who took pains to learn shorthand, or for programmers adept at assembly code).

This brings up the definition of "embrace." We need to consider what embracing actually means after you concede that ignoring and banning are not viable long-term tactics. Ultimately, embrace must involve more than just enthusiasm for the technology. It must focus on how the relevant technology eventually benefits societies and the people who inhabit them. And embrace implies adaptability since we cannot accomplish our goal without it.

So how do you adjust? According to who you are. The following three categories, which I listed in alphabetical order, will require significantly different adaptations. 

Individuals: We must all assess what abilities we possess (and rely upon) that ChatGPT has already replaced or is likely to replace once its problems are fixed. Given how quickly AI technology is developing, it is reasonable to believe that identified problems will eventually be resolved. Utilize ChatGPT dif it enables us to increase our contribution to the environment. It would be good to look for other core values to develop if it takes the place of a fundamental value we offer to our environment. 

Businesses: Businesses may pose the same inquiry.

Programs with standards. The hardest one is this one. While the majority of commercial enterprises are judged on what they create rather than how they create it (as long as it is lawful), standards-based programs like schools are required to teach specific subjects in a particular manner. For instance, even if ChatGPT may now write these types of essays, an English teacher is still expected to teach her students how to write essays. Core competencies are also under doubt in this situation. Are the skills we teach now actually the fundamental skills of the future, just as we all know that shorthand and assembly language coding are not core skills for today's students at any level? And what will it take to get a consensus on the new core competencies?