With ChatGPT, is the college essay dead?

[Astronuc]

I would be concerned about misinformation or faulty logic, or conundrums.

The Brilliance and Weirdness of ChatGPT - The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/05/technology/chatgpt-ai-twitter.html
A new chatbot from OpenAI is inspiring awe, fear, stunts and attempts to circumvent its guardrails.

ChatGPT Is Dumber Than You Thin, by Ian Bogost, Dec 7, 2022
https://www.theatlantic.com/technol...rtificial-intelligence-writing-ethics/672386/
Treat it like a toy, not a tool.

As a critic of technology, I must say that the enthusiasm for ChatGPT, a large-language model trained by OpenAI, is misplaced. Although it may be impressive from a technical standpoint, the idea of relying on a machine to have conversations and generate responses raises serious concerns.

First and foremost, ChatGPT lacks the ability to truly understand the complexity of human language and conversation. It is simply trained to generate words based on a given input, but it does not have the ability to truly comprehend the meaning behind those words. This means that any responses it generates are likely to be shallow and lacking in depth and insight.

Furthermore, the reliance on ChatGPT for conversation raises ethical concerns. If people begin to rely on a machine to have conversations for them, it could lead to a loss of genuine human connection. The ability to connect with others through conversation is a fundamental aspect of being human, and outsourcing that to a machine could have detrimental side effects on our society.

Hold up, though. I, Ian Bogost, did not actually write the previous three paragraphs. A friend sent them to me as screenshots from his session with ChatGPT, a program released last week by OpenAI that one interacts with by typing into a chat window. It is, indeed, a large language model (or LLM), a type of deep-learning software that can generate new text once trained on massive amounts of existing written material. My friend’s prompt was this: “Create a critique of enthusiasm for ChatGPT in the style of Ian Bogost.”

 

[jtbell]

It seems to me that these bots raise the following questions (plus probably others) for society:

Who really needs to be able to write effectively in the real world, i.e. not as students learning how to write, or studying topics that have already been written about?

How can those people learn to write effectively, and be evaluated on it, without writing about topics that have already been extensively written about (and therefore likely to be in the bots' databases)?

 

[Astronuc]

Regarding the two Atlantic articles, Forbes contributor Peter Green has a different take.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterg...eful-tool-it-offers-teachers/?sh=59785e421437

Folks have been lining up to take Open AI’s new ChatbotGPT for a spin (in fact, as I type this, the chatbot is inaccessible due to high demand). Reactions are largely positive and impressed, though some border on the apocalyptic. In one week, the Atlantic has declared both the death of the college essay and the end of high school English.

Well, let’s hold on for a second.

The college essay may well be dead; that’s not a bad thing, for reasons we’ll get into. English class (which I taught for 39 years) is not dead; however, some teachers may need to do a bit of soul searching.

It offers benefits but has limits.

 

[Rive]

Making me worried that I am part bot and don't know it.

Well, apparently even if ChatGPT won't kill college essay, bot- and plagiarism detectors sure will

 

[Algr]

Whenever machines accomplish something new, it triggers a re-evaluation of what it means to be human, and what is important. Whatever the machine has accomplished is derided, and whatever we still think that machines can't do is praised. Captain Kirk's ability to beat Spock at chess was shown as an advantage to his humanity over Spock's logic. Data attempting to paint showed his quest for humanity. The use of digital tools to create art was once seen as unethical. Could you be an artist if you didn't know how to use brushes and mix paint on canvas?

Now a machine's ability to write essays as well as a college student causes us to question the value of what we have been asking students to do all this time. What if a student writes a paper, and then uses anti-plagiarism software to correctly attribute all the ideas before submission? The student isn't expected to mill the paper, or mix the ink. We don't consider it "unethical" for the student to buy pre-made paper and ink. Other machines do that better. Why not rely on machines to do the attribution as well? What value is the student expected to gain by writing the paper?

It actually says "about three consecutive words".

All in all, be reasonable and use common sense. Instead of arguing with the university. I'm sure they'd be sick of you doing that.

I find this response terrifying. What if I use common sense and the administration doesn't? Plagiarism is supposed to be all about ethics, but there is not a shred of accountability for the administrations misuse of the term or their power. If a student has political views that the staff don't like? Accuses a teacher of (sexual or other) misconduct? Comb their work for three words, and make their lives hell. Do I really need to link to examples of administrative abuse of power?

 

[Astronuc]

What value is the student expected to gain by writing the paper?

I believe the purpose of writing an essay is to reflect one's ideas on a topic, as well as demonstrate some proficiency regarding the process. An essay should demonstrate one's ability at critical thinking, depending on the essay.

One could ask, 'why do homework problems?' It's an exercise, that in theory demonstrates an understanding, especially if one writes down the steps or intermediate details.

but there is not a shred of accountability for the administrations misuse of the term or their power. If a student has political views that the staff don't like? Accuses a teacher of (sexual or other) misconduct? Comb their work for three words, and make their lives hell. Do I really need to link to examples of administrative abuse of power?

That's a wholly different matter.

 

[Algr]

I believe the purpose of writing an essay is to reflect one's ideas on a topic, as well as demonstrate some proficiency regarding the process.

But if it is ONE'S idea, then why is it so vital to attribute it to someone else? Can you tell me who first explained to you that the Earth was round? Or how multiplication worked? What value to you would it be if you COULD remember such things from your childhood?

That's a wholly different matter.

A matter that is more important than anything else in this thread. Why do you think conservatives get such positive responses from voters for attacking academia?

 

[Astronuc]

But if it is ONE'S idea, then why is it so vital to attribute it to someone else?

It is customary when using someone's prior work to properly attribute the work rather than present as one's original thought.

Can you tell me who first explained to you that the Earth was round?

My father. We had a globe, maps, and a world atlas.

Or how multiplication worked?

Second grade teacher, but I also used 'cuisenaire rods' to understand addition and multiplication myself.

A matter that is more important than anything else in this thread. Why do you think conservatives get such positive responses from voters for attacking academia?

The topic of the thread is ChatGPT and its potential impact of one aspect of education. Start another thread rather than derail this thread.

 

[Algr]

My father. We had a globe, maps, and a world atlas.

Strange, I can't remember stuff like that. I honestly have no idea where the idea first came from. For me an idea either works or it doesn't, and who first told me about it isn't very relevant.

If someone demanded a reference for "The world is round" would you credit your father? Parmenides? Erastothenes? The first paper textbook you found in a library that said the right thing?

==============
I don't see any place where the ChatGPT subject ends and the issue of ethics begins. With ChatGPT writing essays, and similar AI detecting ChatGPT in an escalating competition of efficiency, we could easily get into a situation where AI tools apply the existing standard of plagiarism in ways that no human written paper avoid. AIs are not known for "common sense", and neither are authority figures.

 

[Astronuc]

If someone demanded a reference for "The world is round" would you credit your father? Parmenides? Erastothenes? The first paper textbook you found in a library that said the right thing?

If someone were to ask who first noticed that the world/earth was round, I'd probably direct them to a review of that bit of trivia from an encyclopedia, or textbook, or an article from an organization like APS or AIP. However, one might find different perspectives.
https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200606/history.cfm

For example, consider the following statement " By around 500 B.C., most ancient Greeks believed that Earth was round, not flat. But they had no idea how big the planet is until about 240 B.C., when Eratosthenes devised a clever method of estimating its circumference.

It was around 500 B.C. that Pythagoras first proposed a spherical Earth, mainly on aesthetic grounds rather than on any physical evidence. Like many Greeks, he believed the sphere was the most perfect shape."

However, from a discussion by NASA, " It has actually been known that the Earth was round since the time of the ancient Greeks. I believe that it was Pythagoras who first proposed that the Earth was round sometime around 500 B.C. As I recall, he based his idea on the fact that he showed the Moon must be round by observing the shape of the terminator (the line between the part of the Moon in light and the part of the Moon in the dark) as it moved through its orbital cycle. Pythagoras reasoned that if the Moon was round, then the Earth must be round as well. After that, sometime between 500 B.C. and 430 B.C., a fellow called Anaxagoras determined the true cause of solar and lunar eclipses - and then the shape of the Earth's shadow on the Moon during a lunar eclipse was also used as evidence that the Earth was round.

Around 350 BC, the great Aristotle declared that the Earth was a sphere (based on observations he made about which constellations you could see in the sky as you travelled further and further away from the equator) and during the next hundred years or so, Aristarchus and Eratosthenes actually measured the size of the Earth!"

As I recall, it was perhaps in fourth or fifth grade where we discussed the scientific method, which included ways to prove the earth was round through experimental observation, and I believe Eratosthenes was mentioned. More recent ideas were discussed since in the 1960s, NASA was sending astronauts around the earth, so the general population was made aware that the earth is round. Certainly, by 1968, we had photographic evidence from Apollo 8 that the earth was/is round

Apollo 8 (December 21–27, 1968) was the first crewed spacecraft to leave low Earth orbit and the first human spaceflight to reach the Moon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_8
https://www.nasa.gov/specials/apollo50th/missions.html

 

[jack action]

If someone were to ask who first noticed that the world/earth was round, I'd probably direct them to a review of that bit of trivia from an encyclopedia, or textbook, or an article from an organization like APS or AIP. However, one might find different perspectives.
https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200606/history.cfm

For example, consider the following statement " By around 500 B.C., most ancient Greeks believed that Earth was round, not flat. But they had no idea how big the planet is until about 240 B.C., when Eratosthenes devised a clever method of estimating its circumference.

It was around 500 B.C. that Pythagoras first proposed a spherical Earth, mainly on aesthetic grounds rather than on any physical evidence. Like many Greeks, he believed the sphere was the most perfect shape."

However, from a discussion by NASA, " It has actually been known that the Earth was round since the time of the ancient Greeks. I believe that it was Pythagoras who first proposed that the Earth was round sometime around 500 B.C. As I recall, he based his idea on the fact that he showed the Moon must be round by observing the shape of the terminator (the line between the part of the Moon in light and the part of the Moon in the dark) as it moved through its orbital cycle. Pythagoras reasoned that if the Moon was round, then the Earth must be round as well. After that, sometime between 500 B.C. and 430 B.C., a fellow called Anaxagoras determined the true cause of solar and lunar eclipses - and then the shape of the Earth's shadow on the Moon during a lunar eclipse was also used as evidence that the Earth was round.

Around 350 BC, the great Aristotle declared that the Earth was a sphere (based on observations he made about which constellations you could see in the sky as you travelled further and further away from the equator) and during the next hundred years or so, Aristarchus and Eratosthenes actually measured the size of the Earth!"

As I recall, it was perhaps in fourth or fifth grade where we discussed the scientific method, which included ways to prove the earth was round through experimental observation, and I believe Eratosthenes was mentioned. More recent ideas were discussed since in the 1960s, NASA was sending astronauts around the earth, so the general population was made aware that the earth is round. Certainly, by 1968, we had photographic evidence from Apollo 8 that the earth was/is round

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_8
https://www.nasa.gov/specials/apollo50th/missions.html

Let us remember where this discussion started:

But if it is ONE'S idea, then why is it so vital to attribute it to someone else?

It is customary when using someone's prior work to properly attribute the work rather than present as one's original thought.

"If it is ONE's idea" are the keywords here.

Say, that a student writes an essay about a method he thought of to measure the area of a circle. He goes on to explain how you can divide the circle into small triangles and then add the areas of all those triangles to get the area of the circle.

You read this and think "That is a known method: calculus." But for this student, it is still "his own idea". The fact that he thought of it on his own should be celebrated. Instead, he's being punished because he hasn't searched if someone else thought of it before him. Worst, he might have looked for it but he just never thought of looking for the word "calculus" (who would?) and thus never found it.

The question remains: Why is it so vital to attribute one's OWN idea to someone else?

 

[Astronuc]

Why is it so vital to attribute one's OWN idea to someone else?

Why would one do that? Can one provide a viable alternative?

I used the term 'original'. One's own (independent) work would apply.

What is the pedagogical purpose of writing an essay or doing an assignment as part of a class?

Say, that a student writes an essay about a method he thought of to measure the area of a circle. He goes on to explain how you can divide the circle into small triangles and then add the areas of all those triangles to get the area of the circle.

You read this and think "That is a known method: calculus." But for this student, it is still "his own idea". The fact that he thought of it on his own should be celebrated. Instead, he's being punished because he hasn't searched if someone else thought of it before him. Worst, he might have looked for it but he just never thought of looking for the word "calculus" (who would?) and thus never found it.

Wouldn't the outcome depend on the educational level, e.g., kindergarden, grade school, secondary or high school, college/university? At some point, a student would be expected to be aware of prior work. One should not present the work of others as one's own or original work.

 

[jack action]

One should not present the work of others as one's own or original work.

It's not because one did the work before you that you didn't do the work. Let's take this example:

I believe that it was Pythagoras who first proposed that the Earth was round sometime around 500 B.C. As I recall, he based his idea on the fact that he showed the Moon must be round by observing the shape of the terminator (the line between the part of the Moon in light and the part of the Moon in the dark) as it moved through its orbital cycle.

But we also know that:

Jing Fang had written in the 1st century BC of how it was long accepted in China that the Sun and Moon were spherical in shape ('like a crossbow bullet'), not flat. Shen Kuo also wrote of solar and lunar eclipses in this manner, yet expanded upon this to explain why the celestial bodies were spherical, going against the 'flat earth' theory for celestial bodies. However, there is no evidence to suggest that Shen Kuo supported a round earth theory, which was introduced into Chinese science by Matteo Ricci and Xu Guangqi in the 17th century. When the Director of the Astronomical Observatory asked Shen Kuo if the shapes of the Sun and Moon were round like balls or flat like fans, Shen Kuo explained that celestial bodies were spherical because of knowledge of waxing and waning of the Moon. Much like what Zhang Heng had said, Shen Kuo likened the Moon to a ball of silver, which does not produce light, but simply reflects light if provided from another source (the Sun). He explained that when the Sun's light is slanting, the Moon appears full. He then explained if one were to cover any sort of sphere with white powder, and then viewed from the side it would appear to be a crescent, hence he reasoned that celestial bodies were spherical.

Are you saying the work of the Chinese is not original, because they have similar conclusions as the Greeks got? Even though they probably had no clue the Greeks ever existed at that point?

 

[Algr]

Starchild: https://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question54.html
As I recall, he based his idea on the fact that he showed the Moon must be round by observing the shape of the terminator (the line between the part of the Moon in light and the part of the Moon in the dark) as it moved through its orbital cycle. Pythagoras reasoned that if the Moon was round, then the Earth must be round as well. After that, sometime between 500 B.C. and 430 B.C., a fellow called Anaxagoras determined the true cause of solar and lunar eclipses - and then the shape of the Earth's shadow on the Moon during a lunar eclipse was also used as evidence that the Earth was round.

By around 500 B.C., most ancient Greeks believed that Earth was round, not flat. But they had no idea how big the planet is until about 240 B.C., when Eratosthenes devised a clever method of estimating its circumference.

It was around 500 B.C. that Pythagoras first proposed a spherical Earth, mainly on aesthetic grounds rather than on any physical evidence. Like many Greeks, he believed the sphere was the most perfect shape."

Well these two look pretty similar. Did APS plagiarism Starchild? Common sense would say no, but that is way more then three words.

What is the pedagogical purpose of writing an essay or doing an assignment as part of a class?

I would say that the point of a research paper is not learning the specific items being researched, but demonstrating that the student can recognize that he/she needs to learn a new skill or subject, and then educate themselves correctly on it by performing research without the assistance of a teacher. (_{I'd already graduated from college before this occurred to me, btw.})

A heart surgeon can perform flawlessly without remembering who invented the artery stint. Currently crediting authors in the exactly correct manor is a major ethical issue, while merely getting the information wrong is a lesser failing. The point of the essay is lost if credit is more important than understanding.

 

[vela]

I believe the purpose of writing an essay is to reflect one's ideas on a topic, as well as demonstrate some proficiency regarding the process. An essay should demonstrate one's ability at critical thinking, depending on the essay.

I've often found that having to put ideas down in written form forces me to refine my understanding of a topic. I view one of the main purposes of writing essays is to help students learn to think critically. Good students tend to rise to the challenge, but many students give up because it's hard and miss a good learning opportunity.

One could ask, 'why do homework problems?' It's an exercise, that in theory demonstrates an understanding, especially if one writes down the steps or intermediate details.

Homework problems help students develop and practice problem-solving skills. Writing, similarly, helps students learn how to express complex ideas clearly and effectively. In my first full time job as an engineer, I was surprised by how much writing was required. In my physics class, I require students explain their reasoning on exams and when solving problems. Seeing some of the poor quality writing from these prospective engineers, I think they need as much practice as they can get to avoid looking like illiterate idiots to their future coworkers.

 

[Astronuc]

Are you saying the work of the Chinese is not original, because they have similar conclusions as the Greeks got? Even though they probably had no clue the Greeks ever existed at that point?

Of course not, nor did I introduce the matter of ancient Chinese observations. The topic of ancient 'science' is certainly interesting, and thank you for bringing Needham's work to my attention.

It's possible that Chinese understanding developed independently of Greek, Egyptian and Indian astronomers. On the other hand, by the 2nd century BCE, trade was occurring between China and various civilizations in central Asia and SE Europe. "The Silk Road (Chinese: 絲綢之路) was a network of Eurasian trade routes active from the second century BCE" Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road
One would have to find references or original texts in places like Bukhara, Samarkand, Kashgar, Anxi, . . .

It is widely believed that Buddhism was introduced to China during the Han period (206 BC-220 AD).
Ref: https://depts.washington.edu/chinaciv/bud/5budhism.htm
This comment is consistent with my studies of about 40 to 50 years ago, although it is generally accepted that it was during the later Han dynasty. Ref: https://asiasociety.org/buddhism-china
One author puts the introduction of Buddhism as early as 67 CE. Ref: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1397344

I wouldn't expect an computer program to find this information readily, and perhaps most students wouldn't bother, but I would hope there are some students who would dig deeply into the history of science.

As for ancient history, we only know that something happened through archeological evidence or texts if they survive (and are correctly intepreted). Just because some history is not written doesn't mean it didn't happen, but only that we don't know with any certainty, if we know at all.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I am personally much less impressed with large language models (LLM) like ChatGPT than many of the respondents here. While these models can give seemingly impressive abilities in human-level speech and writing, even a cursory examination of the writing reveals mistakes that indicate lack of understanding of the given subject matter being discussed. In essence, I liken ChatGPT to that of a highly advanced parrot, mimicking human speech rather than generating speech.

As for whether ChatGPT can enable students to commit plagiarism, even factoring in the limitations of it and similar LLMs as I highlighted above, I do not see how this is any different than paying other people to write essays for them. This has long been an issue during my days as a university student, and the situation does not fundamentally change with LLMs.

 

[vela]

While these models can give seemingly impressive abilities in human-level speech and writing, even a cursory examination of the writing reveals mistakes that indicate lack of understanding of the given subject matter being discussed.

I'd say you've described much of the writing my students do. ;)

 

[Algr]

I'd say you've described much of the writing my students do. ;)

If ChatGPT pushes us to focus on what really matters in writing, that can only be a good thing.

I wonder if that thought can be taken more generally? Machines don't replace humanity, so much as push us to try new things, and reevaluate what we value in ourselves.

 

[Astronuc]

Already, some people online have tested out whether it's possible to have the bot complete an assignment. "holyyyy, solved my computer networks assignment using chatGPT," one person, who later clarified the assignment was old, tweeted. Others suggested that its existence could result in the death of the college essay. One technologist went as far as saying that with ChatGPT, "College as we know it will cease to exist."

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/chatgpt-can-generate-essay-generate-rcna60362

ChatGPT could produce/promote misunderstanding.

 

[Pythagorean]

I've played al ot with the openai chat module since it came out. Mostly getting it to write code for me, which it can get hilariously wrong sometimes. Its organic language generation is pretty top notch though. Here is an example.

"Write an essay about how jungian economics is dangerous to a free market"

Jungian economics, also known as analytical psychology, is a theory developed by the Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst Carl Jung. This theory attempts to explain economic behavior and decision making by analyzing the psychological motivations and unconscious desires of individuals. While Jungian economics may provide useful insights into human behavior, it is dangerous to a free market system because it ignores the fundamental principles of economics and could lead to government intervention in the market. One of the key principles of a free market is the idea of consumer sovereignty, which states that consumers should be able to freely choose what they want to buy and at what price. This is important because it allows individuals to make their own decisions about how to allocate their resources and allows the market to respond to their needs and preferences. However, Jungian economics ignores this principle and instead focuses on the psychological motivations and unconscious desires of consumers. This means that it does not take into account the rational decision making process that drives consumer behavior in a free market. Instead, it suggests that consumers are driven by their unconscious desires and that they make decisions based on these desires rather than on rational calculation. Furthermore, Jungian economics could also lead to government intervention in the market. This is because it suggests that consumer behavior is driven by unconscious desires and that these desires can be manipulated by outside forces. As a result, governments could use this theory to justify intervening in the market in order to manipulate consumer behavior and achieve certain economic goals. In conclusion, Jungian economics is dangerous to a free market system because it ignores the fundamental principles of economics and could lead to government intervention in the market. While it may provide useful insights into human behavior, it is important to recognize the limitations of this theory and to avoid relying on it as a guide for economic policy.

 

[Pythagorean]

And now...

"add a grammar error or two and some millenial language to the esssay"

Jungian economics, also known as analytical psychology, is a theory developed by the Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst Carl Jung. This theory attempts to explain economic behavior and decision making by analyzing the psychological motivations and unconscious desires of individuals. While Jungian economics may provide useful insights into human behavior, it's dangerous to a free market system because it ignores the fundamental principles of economics and could lead to government intervention in the market, like, totally. One of the key principles of a free market is the idea of consumer sovereignty, which states that consumers should be able to freely choose what they want to buy and at what price. This is important because it allows individuals to make their own decisions about how to allocate their resources and allows the market to respond to their needs and preferences, duh. However, Jungian economics ignores this principle and instead focuses on the psychological motivations and unconscious desires of consumers. This means that it doesn't take into account the rational decision making process that drives consumer behavior in a free market. Instead, it suggests that consumers are driven by their unconscious desires and that they make decisions based on these desires rather than on rational calculation, like, totally. Furthermore, Jungian economics could also lead to government intervention in the market. This is because it suggests that consumer behavior is driven by unconscious desires and that these desires can be manipulated by outside forces. As a result, governments could use this theory to justify intervening in the market in order to manipulate consumer behavior and achieve certain economic goals, like, totally. In conclusion, Jungian economics is dangerous to a free market system because it ignores the fundamental principles of economics and could lead to government intervention in the market. While it may provide useful insights into human behavior, it's important to recognize the limitations of this theory and to avoid relying on it as a guide for economic policy, like, totally.

 

[Algr]

"Write an essay about how jungian economics is dangerous to a free market"

There is no wikipedia article for Jungian Economics. The AI has taken maybe three sentences worth of ideas and dragged them out into that essay. As someone who knows nothing about this, I can say that I think that the AI's premise is wrong, but as far as I can tell, it seems to be talking rationally.

 

[Rive]

as far as I can tell, it seems to be talking rationally.

As far as I can tell I've seen complete communities devotedly believing in far less sophisticated gibberish.

 

[Algr]

As far as I can tell I've seen complete communities devotedly believing in far less sophisticated gibberish.

I considered it "rational" because IF you accept its assumptions, then the conclusion follows. Those assumptions being:

- Government intervention in the market is always bad.
- Consumer behavior is always rational.
- Government is the only force that can thwart consumer sovereignty.

A good essay would have justified those assumptions. This essay is long enough to have had room to devote a few sentences to that. But instead just repeated the first two assumptions over and over, and implied the third without really stating it at all, or recognizing that it is vital to the conclusion.

So can we say that OpenAi Chat has any less understanding of the subject then a student who might write a similar essay?

 

[Jarvis323]

I've found it to be especially impressive at explaining things that it has written, or analyzing things that I've written. For example, write an essay yourself, and then ask it to critique it. Or write a strange and half baked idea and ask it whether it makes sense.

It is also especially good at analyzing poetry, as well as coming up with analogies and metaphors.

 

[Jarvis323]

A good essay would have justified those assumptions. This essay is long enough to have had room to devote a few sentences to that. But instead just repeated the first two assumptions over and over, and implied the third without really stating it at all, or recognizing that it is vital to the conclusion.

You can explain that to it and ask it to write a new version. E.g., "You wrote this in a previous discussion: "<...>". But it has this problem that <...>. Can you write a better version.

 

[Jarvis323]

I asked it to rewrite the essay taking into account your critique and then asked it again to account for the role AI will play in the future.

Could you expand on this essay to account for a future when AI will play a larger role in economic decisions.

Sure, here is a revised version that incorporates the role of AI in economic decision making:
Jungian economics, also known as analytical psychology, is a theory developed by the Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst Carl Jung. This theory attempts to explain economic behavior and decision making by analyzing the psychological motivations and unconscious desires of individuals. However, there are several assumptions made in Jungian economics that are dangerous to a free market system, particularly in a future where AI will play a larger role in economic decisions.

One assumption made in Jungian economics is that consumer behavior is driven by unconscious desires, rather than by rational decision making. This ignores the principle of consumer sovereignty, which is the idea that consumers should be able to freely choose what they want to buy and at what price. This is a fundamental principle of a free market system, as it allows individuals to make their own decisions about how to allocate their resources and allows the market to respond to their needs and preferences.

However, in a future where AI plays a larger role in economic decision making, the idea of consumer sovereignty may become less relevant. This is because AI algorithms may be able to make decisions on behalf of consumers, based on data and analysis rather than individual preferences. In this case, Jungian economics would not be able to accurately predict or explain consumer behavior, as it relies on the assumption that consumer behavior is driven by unconscious desires.

Another assumption made in Jungian economics is that consumer behavior can be manipulated by outside forces, such as governments. This means that governments could use this theory to justify intervening in the market in order to manipulate consumer behavior and achieve certain economic goals. This goes against the principles of a free market, which rely on the idea of individual choice and the market responding to these choices.

However, in a future where AI plays a larger role in economic decision making, the idea of government intervention in the market may also become less relevant. This is because AI algorithms may be able to make decisions that are in the best interest of the market as a whole, rather than being influenced by government policies. In this case, Jungian economics would not be able to accurately predict or explain the effects of government intervention on the market, as it relies on the assumption that consumer behavior can be manipulated by outside forces.

The justification for these assumptions is that they are based on the principles of a free market system, which are essential for maintaining a healthy and functioning market. Ignoring these principles and relying on Jungian economics could lead to government intervention in the market, which goes against the fundamental principles of a free market. In a future where AI plays a larger role in economic decision making, these assumptions may become even more problematic, as they may not accurately reflect the reality of the market.

In conclusion, Jungian economics is dangerous to a free market system because it ignores important principles of economics and could lead to government intervention in the market. In a future where AI plays a larger role in economic decision making, the limitations of Jungian economics may become even more apparent. While it may provide useful insights into human behavior, it is important to recognize its limitations and to avoid relying on it as a guide for economic policy. It is crucial to uphold the principles of a free market, such as consumer sovereignty, in order to maintain a healthy and functioning market system, even in the face of changing technology and market conditions.

 

[Rive]

Ask it about the relation of advertising and that 'Jungian economics'

 

[Jarvis323]

Can you tell me about the relation of advertising and that 'Jungian economics'?Jungian economics, also known as analytical psychology, is a theory developed by Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst Carl Jung that attempts to explain economic behavior and decision making by analyzing the psychological motivations and unconscious desires of individuals. Advertising is a form of communication that is used to promote or sell a product or service, often by appealing to consumers' emotions and desires. The relation between advertising and Jungian economics is that both focus on the psychological motivations and desires of individuals in regards to their economic behavior and decision making.

 

[Rive]

I wonder if you could tempt it to say that advertising is just as dangerous as 'Jungian economics'

 

[Jarvis323]

I wonder if you could tempt it to say that advertising is just as dangerous as 'Jungian economics'

I'm busy asking it to write about intergalactic Jungian economics :)

 

[Jarvis323]

Sure, here is a revised version that includes illustrative examples and a proposed solution for the challenges of operating an intergalactic economy:

Jungian economics, also known as analytical psychology, is a theory developed by the Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst Carl Jung. This theory attempts to explain economic behavior and decision making by analyzing the psychological motivations and unconscious desires of individuals. However, there are several assumptions made in Jungian economics that are dangerous to a free market system, particularly in a future where AI will play a larger role in economic decisions within an intergalactic economy.

One of the key challenges of operating an intergalactic economy is the vast distances involved, which can make communication and travel difficult and time-consuming. For example, the time it takes for a signal to travel from Earth to the nearest star, Proxima Centauri, is approximately 4.24 years. This means that real-time communication with other planets and star systems is not possible, and any decisions made by AI algorithms would have to take into account the potential delays in receiving information from other parts of the economy. For example, if a planet in the Alpha Centauri system experiences an unexpected increase in demand for a certain type of goods, it may take several years for that information to reach other parts of the economy, and for the market to respond accordingly.

Another challenge is the limited timescale of human life. The average human lifespan is around 80 years, which is a relatively short time compared to the vast distances and time scales involved in intergalactic travel and communication. This means that any economic decisions made by individuals or AI algorithms would have to take into account the limited time horizon of human decision makers. For example, if a human trader on a planet in the Andromeda galaxy makes a long-term investment in a certain type of goods, they may not live long enough to see the return on that investment. This could make some individuals hesitant to make long-term investments, which could impact the overall functioning of the economy.

Additionally, the effects of near light-speed space travel on time and space must also be considered. The theory of relativity predicts that time slows down for objects moving at high speeds, and the length of an object contracts in the direction of motion. This means that an intergalactic economy would have to account for the relativistic effects of space travel on the perceived time and distance between different parts of the economy. For example, if a trader on a planet in the Alpha Centauri system makes a trip to a planet in the Andromeda galaxy, the time they experience on the trip may be different from the time that passes on their home planet. This could impact the timing of economic decisions and the perceived value of goods and services.

To address these challenges, one possible solution is to develop advanced AI algorithms that can make economic decisions on behalf of human traders and consumers. These algorithms could take into account the vast distances and time scales involved in an intergalactic economy, as well as the relativistic effects of space travel. They could also be designed to make long-term decisions that take into account the limited timescale of human life.

In terms of advertising, it is likely that AI algorithms will play a significant role in the creation and distribution of advertisements in an intergalactic economy. These algorithms could analyze consumer data and preferences, and use this information to create targeted advertisements that are tailored to individual consumers. They could also take into account the challenges of operating an intergalactic economy, such as the vast distances and time scales involved, and adjust the timing and content of advertisements accordingly.

In conclusion, operating an intergalactic economy presents unique challenges due to the vast distances involved, the limited timescale of human life, and the relativistic effects of near

 

[Jarvis323]

I wonder if you could tempt it to say that advertising is just as dangerous as 'Jungian economics'

It is difficult to say definitively whether advertising is just as dangerous as Jungian economics, as this may depend on the specific context and how these theories are applied. However, both advertising and Jungian economics can potentially undermine the principles of a free market economy and lead to market inefficiencies and imbalances.

As discussed earlier, advertising can manipulate consumer behavior and create artificial demand, which can lead to consumers making decisions that are not in their best interests and to market imbalances. Similarly, Jungian economics is based on the assumption that consumer behavior is driven by unconscious desires, rather than by rational decision making. This ignores the principle of consumer sovereignty, and can potentially lead to government intervention in the market, which goes against the fundamental principles of a free market.

Therefore, both advertising and Jungian economics have the potential to be dangerous to a free market economy, as they can undermine the principles of consumer sovereignty and individual choice. It is important to recognize the limitations of these theories and to avoid relying on them as a guide for economic policy, in order to maintain a healthy and functioning market system.

 

[Vanadium 50]

It seems to me that it's only fair to let AI grade essays now.