Battle for ChatGPT's True Potential - Get Over the Irrational Fear Already!
Repeat after me - "ChatGPT is not an entity, it is a tool". I am flabbergasted by how many people are looking at ChatGPT as though it is some sort of nefarious invention created to rob us in some way. I could understand if these were just people who are not really involved with processing information or handling documentation, but this week I read about a researcher having an existential crisis over how research proposals could be done using ChatGPT. In his piece, the writer felt that being able to use ChatGPT to 'circumvent' the research submission meant that the whole system was flawed.
For goodness sake, is that the breadth of critical thinking from an academic? By that same logic, process manuals must be flawed because no one ever reads them end-to-end and so they must need to be revised or simplified (or removed?). Because process manuals take a lot of effort to be created and serve no tangible purpose, right? Honestly, this type of linear thinking is doing a real disservice to what ChatGPT could do for all of us.
In the case of the research proposal, obviously there is good reason to make it as comprehensive as it is - to ensure that researchers have really thought through the idea deeply before they embark on something that could take up years of their energy and a whole lot of resources. And using ChatGPT to help is not 'cheating' or 'gaming' - it's sensible. When done right, it reduces the time spent drafting and increases the time spent revising, and you still do everything in lesser time than otherwise. It is superior quality work in a fraction of the time and effort - and yes, it is still your work because you decided on the final output.
Instead of claiming that the research proposal process is a farce, the focus should be on how the flip side ought to use the same tool to add value and speed up the process. For someone reviewing the proposal, ChatGPT should be used to synthesise the information and produce the summary so that they could capture the initial gist. From there, he or she should ask specific questions for ChatGPT to help identify the areas of the proposal where they could go in depth in their review. This would reduce the time spent on the process of assessing the proposal and in fact, offer the reviewer the opportunity to make a more informed decision than to be fatigued by the time they get to the consideration on whether the proposal is acceptable or not.
领英推荐
Tool, not Threat
In essence, ChatGPT does the heavy lifting - namely, the writing on the frontend and the reading on the backend when it comes to research proposals. This frees up time for the researcher to spend the energy adding detail and ensuring robustness of their proposal while the reviewer can apply their expertise to actually giving due consideration to the application (instead of wasting the mental energy reading the document).
To me, criticising this as 'cheating' is akin to someone claiming that autocorrect in word processing is an unfair advantage to those who mucked about when spelling was taught in school. Yes, technically you can make a case for that but what is the point? Aren't we all better for it - even the spelling bee champions?
This type of reductive thinking is what will bring humanity down - not the fearmongering rhetoric that ChatGPT will somehow become our digital overlord in the near future. Do we ban the use of fire just because it is incredibly dangerous? Do we not allow experiments that test the boundaries of using fire for various purposes? But for ChatGPT, we have decided to cripple it just because a handful of delusional people will search for how to make a bomb or for the best strategies to commit crime? Do we realise that such a mypic approach cuts both ways and we are effectively preventing thousands of great minds using the tool to figure out real solutions and facilitate evolutionary progress?
I've been waiting for the past six months for this fear-based mentality to pass and for us to explore real progress and strive for excellence. Instead, every day I am reading about how ChatGPT needs to be stopped. I am not sure whether to laugh or cry that AI has shaken my faith in humanity - not because of what it is achieving, but rather by what it has revealed about the human condition.