I’ve been working with so many students who turn to it as a first resort for everything. The second a problem stumps them, it’s AI. The first source for research is AI.
It’s not even about the tech, there’s just something about not wanting to learn that deeply upsets me. It’s not really something I can understand. There is no reason to avoid getting better at writing.
They also do not cite libraries. Are libraries not a valid place to find information?
To cite a library is like to cite “the internet”.
That just makes no sense.
Agreed. Does that mean there are no credible sources of information in the library?
Yes. They still don’t cite “the library”. If they cite a book they found on the library, I don’t expect them to say the book was from the library either.
You either said something wrong or something silly. Admitting the former prevents you from doubling down on the latter.
The user I replied to initially said Google and Wikipedia are enemies of the education system because you shouldn’t cite them as a source of information. They contain sources of information, like a library. No reasonable person believes libraries shouldn’t be utilized in finding credible information. As you stated, you wouldn’t list a library in a citation. You cite the sources found within the library. By saying Wikipedia and Google are enemies of the education system, you’d have to make that claim for libraries or any other aggregator of informstion and data.
If I did say something wrong or silly you will have to point it out for me.
As stated, nobody cites “libraries”.
By the way, you’re replying to somebody saying published papers don’t cite google or Wikipedia, not that you shouldn’t cite them. Well, you shouldn’t cite google anyway the same way you don’t cite the library.
Wikipedia isn’t an aggregator, and it’s not considered a reputable source. It’s a good surface level, or entry point, but it that’s the extend of you’re research, you’re doing a lot wrong. Like considering citing google wrong.
You chose the latter.
I understand what the user I replied to said. Now ask yourself why don’t published papers cite Google or Wikipedia? I know you know the answer because we already agreed on it. Despite that reason, I don’t believe that makes Google or Wikipedia “enemies of education”. This is where my library analogy comes in. Just because you wouldn’t cite “the library” doesn’t mean libraries are the enemy of education.
Do you want to point out where I said something wrong or silly? I’m still not seeing it.
You can find information from a library. What you can’t do is write a quote in a paper and source it as “my local library”.
LLMs are worse than Google, Wikipedia and libraries because they are unable to cite journal, volume, issue and page number.
Much like a library you would use Google and Wikipedia to find information, not use them as sources themselves.
We agree. My original comment was
That was only half of your comment.
Here’s where I disagree. All together the two sentences read as though you’re second sentence is the reason for why you believe the first sentence.
The point I was trying to make with the library analogy is that although you wouldn’t list "the library " as a source of information, you probably wouldn’t consider them to be enemies of education.
Perhaps I should have been more explicit about the subject
Wikipedia and Google are enemies of academic papers just as much as LLMs.
They are not enemies of learning. Neither are libraries.
I am hesitant to say that an LLM is a good source of learning because it bullshits regularly in ways that are undetectable.