GERAK statement on ChatGPT*

 “ChatGPT is a language model created by OpenAI, designed to answer a wide range of questions on a variety of topics. It has been trained on a vast corpus of text data and is capable of generating natural language responses to a wide range of queries.”(Response from ChatGPT about what it is).

Gerak has watched with interest and some fascination the introduction of ChatGPT by OpenAI.

Equally fascinating are the responses to the innovation ranging from doomsday pronouncements to unbridled enthusiasm that see the innovation as a game changer in many fields of human endeavour. Particularly noteworthy are the reactions from higher education institutions and educators.

Here, too, the responses range from the extreme to the curious and from the positive to the negative.

The doomsday criers see in the innovation the beginning of the end of universities. Educators are concerned that it will undermine academic integrity, encourage academic cheating in the form of plagiarism and promote laziness in students and even teachers.

Less strident opponents are concerned with students becoming over reliant on technology leading to diminished critical thinking and problem-solving skills. There is also concern that students learning in isolation from others will have negative implications on the social aspects of learning which are vital for the overall development of students in higher education.

GERAK shares many of these concerns. We fear that relying too heavily on a single source of knowledge, however large the dataset exposes students and academics to incomplete, inaccurate, biased and misleading information.

The ChatGPT demo model that is available to anyone responds quickly to most questions, but the answers are, for the moment, synthetic and robotic. They lack the conviction of the texts one reads in books.

Also, when asked to carry out more subtle language tasks like evaluating poetry or writing it, ChatGPT’s limitations are stark.

Nonetheless, it is able to explain its limitations (‘I am a large language model trained by OpenAI and I don’t have the ability to evaluate the quality of literary works or make aesthetic judgments.’) making it sound like a contrite student caught cheating. Its efficiencies will however certainly improve over the years with larger datasets and improved AI. Indeed, we see the technology becoming pervasive, not only in higher education but in other areas human endeavour.

We can add a whole host of concerns and limitations about the innovation. Suffice for now that the ethical and deep educational issues will not go away. Of even greater concern is how AI based tools will dominate knowledge production and lead students and scholars to rely only on AI sources to tap into knowledge. There is a real risk of knowledge domination flowing from such contraptions that threaten to make us the victims of knowledge and not its creators. Higher education must find ways to deal with these.

There is therefore an urgent need for a government high-level task force or committee of experts from education and technology to understand the technology and develop cross-sector policies and guidelines to meet the potential and challenges of the technology. This is essential in light of the Guidance issued by UNESCO on AI and education and the initiatives taken by Australia and the US to address this. 

The Minister of Higher Education in his resolutions for the higher education sector has foreshadowed the development of a White Paper on technology, "A New Horizon for Science, Technology, and Innovation. A Strategy for Malaysia".

GERAK believes that the scope of that initiative can be expanded to include innovations like ChatGPT or, better still, to develop a separate paper that will focus only on Artificial Intelligence generated tools.

GERAK is willing to participate in such an initiative in support of the government’s desire to enhance the quality of genuine education in Malaysia. 

* This article appeared on the Malaysiakini news portal and other media. It was published by Gerak which is an influential association of academics serving in Malaysia.

Internet Shutdown to Prevent Cheating in Exams

Imagine a country shutting down the Internet to prevent students from using it to cheat in public examinations.

Extraordinary as it may seem, there is a case pending before the Indian Supreme Court that is challenging a recent shutdown of the Internet for that very reason. Nor is this the first time that such a challenge was raised in the Indian courts. In March last year, a Calcutta resident challenged an Internet suspension order, which was issued by the State Government of West Bengal. The order, ostensibly issued for reasons of preventing ‘unlawful activities’, was actually passed for preventing cheating in Class 10 Board Examinations. The date and time for the Internet suspension mentioned in the order coincided exactly with the schedule for the examinations. However, the fact that the Internet was suspended to prevent cheating was only revealed by the government lawyer during oral arguments in court.

It is not uncommon for countries to order an Internet shutdown (although I don't recollect such actions being taken in this country). Shutting down the internet is a drastic step that must be employed only when there is clear evidence that a shutdown will help preserve public safety or national security. The Internet is more than a space for pastime or idle gossip, nor is it only another channel for the freedom of expression. It is now used in every sphere of life - as a means to keep people connected, to carry out business transactions and to connect with health and education services. Closing down the Internet will affect the livelihood of people and how they live.

But there is a more troubling concern that is raised when the Internet is shut down to prevent cheating in examinations. After ten years of education, the education system seems to have failed to instill the one virtue in its pupils without which the rest of education is meaningless - honesty. Either that or the system and the educators in the system are too lazy or too inept to review time-expired educational processes to keep them abreast of the changing world.