Part II: Giving Voice to the Social Sciences

第二部分：为社会科学发声

Art is a collaboration between God and the artist, and the less the artist does the better.

—André Gide

艺术是上帝与艺术家的合作，艺术家做得越少越好。

—安德烈·纪德

A single conversation across the table with a wise man is better than ten years mere study of books.

—Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

与智者在桌边的一次交谈胜过十年单纯读书。

—亨利·沃兹沃斯·朗费罗

Why Students Write

学生为什么要写作

Something seemed off.

有什么地方不对劲。

The Furman University professor Darren Hick was grading papers for a class he was teaching on the philosophy of David Hume and the paradox of horror when he stumbled over one student’s work. A teacher of art, ethics, law, and copyright, Hick is always on the lookout for cheating. Oftentimes, cheating looks as if a student has simply taken studies or information from the internet and cobbled it together, resulting in a paper that basically announces itself as plagiarism. This paper didn’t have that, though. Rather, it was clean. Too clean.

弗曼大学教授达伦·希克在批改他教授的关于大卫·休谟哲学和恐怖悖论的课程论文时，发现了一名学生的作品有问题。作为一名艺术、伦理、法律和版权方向的教师，希克总是警惕作弊行为。通常情况下，作弊看起来就像学生只是从互联网上获取学习资料或信息，然后拼凑在一起，结果就是一篇基本上自称是抄袭的论文。但这篇论文并没有这种感觉。相反，它很干净。太干净了。

The closer he read, the more glaringly problematic the paper became. In particular, he was struck by the incongruence of how the student so confidently spouted incorrect information as fact.

他读得越仔细，这篇论文就越显得有问题。特别是，他被学生如此自信地将错误信息作为事实说出来这种不协调性所震惊。

Hick began to play detective. He googled passages from the paper, just to see what turned up, but the searches came back empty. “At this point I had heard about ChatGPT, but it was a brand-new technology,” he says. He created an account on OpenAI and from there reverse engineered what his student might have prompted ChatGPT to write such a clean paper. Here, he also learned that large language models at times hallucinated, stating erroneous information as fact. After some digging, he was all but certain that this student’s paper was written by AI.

希克开始扮演侦探角色。他在谷歌上搜索论文中的段落，看看会有什么结果，但搜索结果是空的。“这时我听说过 ChatGPT，但它是一个全新的技术，”他说。他在 OpenAI 上创建了一个账户，从那里逆向工程学生可能提示 ChatGPT 写出这样一篇干净的论文。在这里，他还了解到大型语言模型有时会产生幻觉，将错误信息当作事实陈述。经过一番挖掘，他几乎可以肯定这名学生的论文是由 AI 撰写的。

Talk about horror! Artificial intelligence was here, and so was every teacher’s worst nightmare. Hick realized that he was facing a technology that wrote essays for students—a technology, he says, that potentially took the process of learning out of the process of writing. So Hick did what any concerned teacher might do and posted about the experience on Facebook with a warning.

这真是恐怖！人工智能来了，每位老师最担心的噩梦也来了。希克意识到，他面临的是一种为学生写论文的技术——他说，这种技术可能将学习过程从写作过程中剥离出去。于是，希克做了任何一位上心的老师可能会做的事情，在 Facebook 上发布了关于这一经历的警告。

There was a reason to be scared! GPT technology posed an existential threat to education as we all knew it, he wrote. His note of caution captured the fear people often express when they first learn about ChatGPT’s capabilities. The AI generates text, summaries, and analysis that are nearly impossible to distinguish from those written by a human. It isn’t traditional plagiarism, because it is usually novel text, something that hasn’t been written that way before. Say farewell to student integrity, because the temptation to use an AI to complete assignments was going to make teaching students a profoundly more difficult endeavor. What were educators to do about it?

确实有理由感到害怕！他写道，GPT 技术对我们所知的教育构成了生存威胁。他的警告笔记捕捉到了人们首次了解 ChatGPT 功能时经常表达出的恐惧。这种 AI 生成的文本、摘要和分析几乎无法与人类撰写的区别开来。这不是传统的抄袭，因为它通常是新颖的文本，以前从未以这种方式写过。告别学生的诚信吧，因为使用人工智能来完成作业的诱惑将使教导学生的工作变得更加困难。教育工作者该怎么办呢？

As one of the first professors to publicly spot these dangers, Hick saw his Facebook post go viral. Media started calling. Within days, Hick was internationally famous for having caught a student using ChatGPT, a designation that made him the new academic sheriff in town. “You’d think that would be enough to put the scare into students, but it wasn’t,” he says. “The very next semester, I caught someone else who used ChatGPT to write a paper too!” (My suspicion is that there were other students that he didn’t catch because they likely used ChatGPT in more subtle ways and took the trouble to fact-check its output.)

作为第一个公开发现这些危险的教授之一，希克看到他的 Facebook 帖子迅速传播。媒体开始打来电话。几天之内，希克因为抓到一名使用 ChatGPT 的学生而闻名国际，这让他成为了学术界的新警长。“你可能认为这足以吓到学生，但事实并非如此，”他说。“下一个学期，我又抓到另一个使用 ChatGPT 写论文的学生！”（我怀疑还有其他学生他没抓到，因为他们可能以更微妙的方式使用 ChatGPT，并费心地核对了它的输出。）

Hick could try his best to spot GPT-written papers, and he could try his best, as well, to restrict students from using ChatGPT in his classroom, but in the end the task was futile. If students weren’t going to change how they used ChatGPT to write, maybe it was time Hick changed how he was approaching it in his classes. Either he could spend all his time trying to adjudicate or he could lean into the work of educated bravery and consider the ways generative AI was capable of making his students better learners.

希克可以尽最大努力发现由 GPT 撰写的论文，也可以尽最大努力限制学生在课堂上使用 ChatGPT，但最终结果是徒劳的。如果学生不打算改变他们使用 ChatGPT 写作的方式，也许是时候希克改变他在课堂上处理它的方式了。他要么花费所有时间去裁定，要么他可以倾向于受过教育的勇敢的工作，并考虑生成式 AI 如何使他的学生成为更好的学习者。

Other educators who were among the first to move into this space have reached this same impasse, too, and have also turned it into an inflection point. It is an inflection point that makes us revisit why we have writing assignments in the first place. By revisiting what we think we are trying to accomplish through a writing assignment, we can also think about how to solve the cheating issue in a post-ChatGPT world.

其他最早进入这一领域的教育工作者也遇到了同样的僵局，他们也将其变成了 一个转折点。这是一个让我们重新审视为什么我们首先要布置写作作业的拐点。通过重新审视我们认为我们试图通过写作作业来实现的目标，我们也可以思考如何在后 ChatGPT 世界中解决作弊问题。

At its most essential, writing is a form of communication. It is a form of communication that requires structured thinking and fluency with language and grammar. And, of course, you need to know what you are going to write about. If it is editorial writing, you need to come up with an opinion and articulate first to yourself why you believe it. If it is a research paper, you need to digest what research literature already exists and, ideally, build on that with your own novel research and analysis. If it is a news story, you need to interview people to get interesting insights out of them and potentially do research from other sources, such as public records or government data. If it is fiction writing, you need to have an imagination and a sense of what makes a compelling story.

从本质上讲，写作是一种交流方式。这是一种需要结构化思维和语言、语法流利性的交流形式。当然，你需要知道你要写什么。如果是社论写作，你需要提出一个观点并首先向自己阐明为什么相信它。如果是研究论文，你需要消化现有的研究文献，并且理想情况下，用你自己的新颖研究和分析来扩展它。如果是新闻报道，你需要采访人们，从中获取有趣的见解，并可能从其他来源进行研究，例如公共记录或政府数据。如果是小说写作，你需要有想象力和对什么是引人入胜的故事的理解。

If a teacher’s goal is to give students practice and assessment in structured thinking, language, and grammar, simple storytelling, or just forming and backing up an opinion, you don’t necessarily need a traditional take-home writing assignment, where there is likely a strong temptation to use ChatGPT. Instead, an in-class, proctored, five-paragraph essay might do the trick, and it would unfold in a context where there is more support from the teacher (and teachers can directly observe students in their process). If the task might be hard to complete in one sitting, students can work on it in multiple classes, always with the teacher around to support students and ensure that the work is their own.

如果教师的目标是让学生在结构化思维、语言和语法方面进行练习和评估，简单的讲故事，或者只是形成并支持一个观点，你不一定需要一个传统的家庭作业，这里很可能有使用 ChatGPT 的强烈诱惑。相反，在课堂上进行监考的五段式文章可能会达到目的，并且在这种情况下教师可以提供更多支持（教师可以直接观察学生的写作过程）。如果任务可能很难在一个课堂时间内完成，学生可以在多个课堂时间内完成，始终有老师在身边支持学生并确保作业是他们自己的。

If the goal is to understand a student’s ability to do novel research or their ability to conduct investigative journalism, is it even bad to use ChatGPT in the first place? After all, ChatGPT can’t do the most important part—conducting an experiment or interviewing people or observing an event. Even more, in the workplace these tasks will increasingly use tools like ChatGPT, so wouldn’t it be good for students to learn how to employ them while in school?

如果目标是了解学生进行新颖研究或调查性新闻的能力，首先使用 ChatGPT 真的不好吗？毕竟，ChatGPT 无法做最重要的部分——进行实验、采访人们或观察事件。更重要的是，在职场上这些任务将越来越多地使用像 ChatGPT 这样的工具，那么学生在学校学习如何使用这些工具不是很好吗？

These questions and concerns start an even more fundamental conversation about the taxonomy of cheating, which is complex, contradictory, and sometimes as hard to define as it is to prevent. You could debate what’s worse: getting someone to write your paper for you or outright plagiarism. Both are trying to pass off someone else’s work as your own. Cutting and pasting from the internet to compile an essay is cheating, as is copying off someone else’s test or handing in your big sister’s paper from five years ago and calling it your own.

这些问题和担忧引发了一场更为根本的关于作弊分类的对话，作弊是一个复杂、矛盾的概念，有时既难以定义又难以防止。你可以争论哪种情况更糟糕：让别人为你写论文还是彻底的抄袭。两者都是试图将别人的工作冒充为自己的。从互联网上剪切和粘贴来编写一篇文章是作弊，在别人的试卷上抄袭或交上你姐姐五年前的论文并称之为自己的也是作弊。

But what about bouncing ideas off friends or family? What about asking them to critique your work? What if you get help thinking through your thesis statement or coming up with data to back up your points?

但与朋友或家人交流想法呢？请他们评判你的作品呢？如果你在思考论文陈述或想出数据来支持你的观点时得到帮助呢？

Things get only less clear from here. Is getting help from family members, a writing coach, or tutors while writing an essay cheating? Spell-checkers and grammar-checkers might have seemed like cheating to a teacher fifty years ago, but now they are common practice. What about tools like Grammarly, which don’t just correct your basic grammar but can rephrase entire paragraphs to make them clearer and more cogent? This is a commonplace tool that most teachers do not consider cheating.

事情从这里变得更不清楚了。在写作论文时，向家庭成员、写作教练或导师寻求帮助是作弊吗？五十年前，对一位教师来说，拼写检查器和语法检查器可能看起来像是作弊，但现在它们是常见的做法。像 Grammarly 这样的工具，不仅仅是纠正基本语法，还可以重写整段，使其更清晰、更有说服力，这又如何呢？这是大多数教师不认为是作弊的常见工具。

And this is all before we even add generative AI to the mix. If a student asks the AI for advice but doesn’t use it, asks it to punch up a paragraph, or asks it to generate a first draft that they edit and revise to the point that it is a completely different paper, do any of these scenarios constitute cheating?

这一切都发生在我们还没有将生成式人工智能添加到组合中之前。如果学生向人工智能寻求建议但没有使用它，或者要求它润色一段，或者要求它生成一个他们会编辑和修改到完全不同的论文的初稿，那么这些情况中的任何一种都构成作弊吗？

“In the humanities—English, literature, art, music, and culture—we find that generative AI is a terrific step toward helping students create something original,” says the Yale humanities professor Alexander Gil Fuentes. “We are learning what generative AI is good at and, more importantly, what it’s not good at. And what it’s not good at is originality.”

“在人文学科——英语、文学、艺术、音乐和文化中，我们发现生成式 AI 是帮助学生创造原创作品的一大进步，”耶鲁大学人文学科教授亚历山大·吉尔·富恩特斯说。“我们正在学习生成式 AI 擅长什么，更重要的是，它不擅长什么。而它不擅长的是原创性。”

So what is it good at?

那么它擅长什么呢？

“I tell my students to use the technology to help them from zero,” Fuentes continues. “It’s a first-pass tool, and it’s their job to question the AI, double-check, triple-check, and use it to move their original work forward.”

“我告诉我的学生使用这项技术从零开始帮助他们，”富恩特斯继续说道。“这是一种初步工具，他们的工作是质疑 AI，进行二次检查、三次检查，并利用它推进他们的原创作品。”

It’s a novel concept, for sure. When we view the technology as replacing an important current function, it can be scary, because it represents a kind of loss. Yet there is a way to see it as a gain. Through the lens of educated bravery, teachers are rethinking the way they approach essay writing from start to finish.

这确实是一个新颖的概念。当然。当我们将技术视为取代重要的现有功能时，它可能会令人恐惧，因为它代表着一种损失。然而，也有一种方式可以将其视为一种收获。通过受过教育的勇敢的视角，教师们正在重新思考他们从头到尾处理论文写作的方式。

“You are writing with the AI, but it is not writing for you,” says Ethan Mollick, an associate professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, where he studies and teaches innovation and entrepreneurship, especially as it pertains to artificial intelligence. “For educators, embracing this change is going to be important, and it is scary. It is okay to be scared as you listen to this. But we recognize that a lot of the ways we were having people write essays before AI did not make sense.” The people who weren’t very good writers in class wrote bad essays outside class, too, he says. The AI helps them catch up, and it gives them an explanation of where they are with their skills; for instructors, the AI helps flag the students who need the most help and attention. “We can’t pretend the world didn’t change with ChatGPT. It is too late for that. This is here now, and whether we like it or not, we have to adjust as instructors.”

“你是在与 AI 一起写作，但它不是为你写作，”宾夕法尼亚大学沃顿商学院副教授伊桑·莫里克说，他研究和教授创新和创业，特别是与人工智能有关的方面。“对于教育者来说，接受这一变化将很重要，而且令人害怕。听到这些内容时害怕是可以的。但我们认识到，在人工智能出现之 前，我们让人们写论文的很多方式都没有意义。”他说，在课堂上写作不好的学生在课堂外也写不好作文。AI 帮助他们赶上来，并向他们解释他们技能的现状；人工智能可以帮助标记出最需要帮助和关注的学生。“我们不能假装世界没有因 ChatGPT 而改变。现在太晚了。它已经在这里了，无论我们是否喜欢，我们作为教育工作者都必须做出调整。”

Like Hick, Mollick pivoted; rather than ban the technology, he encouraged his students to make themselves aware of it and use it. To cheat or not to cheat is no longer the question; the semantics of cheating misses the larger picture of what this means for the pedagogical process of writing an essay. Professors can mold their own standards for cheating, meaning these boundaries are fluid. What matters more is not whether this can be called cheating but whether this can be called writing.

像希克一样，莫里克转变了思路；他没有禁止这项技术，而是鼓励学生了解并使用它。作弊与否不再是问题；作弊的语义忽略了这对写作过程的教学意义。教授可以制定他们自己的作弊标准，这意味着这些界限是流动的。更重要的是，不是这是否可以称为作弊，而是这是否可以称为写作。

Mollick tells all of his students to write the best essay they can using generative AI. The difference in quality of work, relative to what he saw in previous years, is stark. “I’ve had students in my class who are brilliant people but not good writers, people who cite English as their third language, or people who come from backgrounds where they never learned to write really well; just having that little bit of a hint with ChatGPT has made a difference in their writing.” Generative AI has made his students up their game, and it has upped Mollick’s expectations of work quality in turn, leading him to change his threshold of what makes a good essay. “I no longer accept anything that isn’t perfectly written at this stage. Why bother?”

莫里克告诉所有学生使用生成式 AI 写出他们能写的最好文章。与他过去几年所看到的相比，作品质量的差异非常明显。“我班上有些学生是非常聪明的人，但不是好作家，有些学生英语是他们的第三语言，还有一些人来自从未真正学会写作的背景；仅仅是 ChatGPT 提供的一点提示就改变了他们的写作。”生成式 AI 提高了他学生的水平，也提高了莫里克对作品质量的期望，导致他改变了对好论文的定义。“我现在不再接受任何不完美的写作。为什么要接受呢？”

Like Mollick, Fuentes, and Hick, educators are finding that these generative AI tools make our students far more skilled and efficient writers. They are also finding that, where producing essays was once seen as essential to helping students gain mastery in critical thinking and analytical and writing skills, the artificial intelligence provides students equal, and even better, opportunities to engage with a topic, gather and analyze information, and express their own ideas and arguments.

像莫里克、富恩特斯和希克一样，教育工作者发现这些生成式 AI 工具使我们的学生成为更熟练和高效的写作者。他们还发现，虽然以前写作被认为是帮助学生掌握批判性思维、分析和写作技能的必要手段，但人工智能为学生提供了同等，甚至更好的机会来参与一个主题、收集和分析信息，并表达他们自己的想法和论点。

The future of writing in school will evolve into a more diverse set of activities, depending on the pedagogical goals and comfort of the teacher. I believe that it will always be valuable to learn how to structure one’s thoughts and communicate grammatically. This is often best practiced through writing, but the skills also translate to oral communication. If I’m an educator looking to ensure that my students have strength here, I would do more in-class writing assignments where it is 100 percent the student’s own work. I could also ask students to create videos of themselves communicating their viewpoint or message or story. Even in this case, it would probably be healthy to mix in assignments where the student can start with a draft from generative AI before fact-checking or revising it. At the other extreme, if I believe the crux of the work is more about doing things in the real world and the writing is just a way to communicate all the students’ research, interviews, observations, and progress, then many teachers may allow the use of generative AI tools like the professors described above.

学校写作的未来将演变成更加多样化的活动，这取决于教师的教学目标和舒适度。我相信，学习如何构建自己的思想和进行语法正确的交流将永远是有价值的。这通常是通过写作来练习的，但这些技能也适用于口头交流。如果我是一名教育工作者，希望确保我的学生在这方面有优势，我会在课堂上布置更多的写作作业，这样 100% 都是学生自己的作品。我也可以要求学生制作视频，让他们在视频中表达自己的观点、信息或故事。即使在这种情况下，混合一些学生可以使用生成式 AI 生成初稿，然后进行事实核查或修改的作业，也可 能是健康的。在另一个极端，如果我认为工作的关键更多是做现实世界的事情，而写作只是用来传达学生所有的研究、采访、观察和进展，那么许多教师可能会允许使用像上述教授所描述的生成式 AI 工具。

With Khanmigo, though, we are creating a middle path for teachers, intending to balance the need for students to learn how to write with the utility of generative AI for support. In this scenario Khanmigo acts as a powerful guide, but the student does the bulk of the work. The student can ask Khanmigo, “What points should I consider as I write an essay about The Great Gatsby?” It will suggest themes including the American dream, social class and inequality, the Jazz Age and the Roaring Twenties, and key symbols in the novel, such as the green light, the eyes of Dr. T. J. Eckleburg, and the Valley of Ashes. The technology works well when a student takes a couple of paragraphs of something they’ve written and asks the large language model to read it and critique its strengths and weaknesses. It can help students with counterarguments and make what they’ve written more compelling, encouraging them to think about the essay as a good writing coach might do. Again, the AI tutor does not do the work for the students. Rather, it works alongside them. Within seconds, the artificial intelligence will provide feedback, highlight areas for improvement, and offer suggestions for how to revise and refine the work. It helps craft tone, voice, and perspective even as students develop their own. At its best, an education-based AI platform can be the world’s finest assistant and co-collaborator, objective in its assessments and thorough in its analytics, designed to do one thing and one thing only: to sharpen a student’s skills.

然而，通过 Khanmigo，我们为教师创造了一条中间道路，旨在平衡学生学习如何写作的需求与生成式 AI 支持的效用。在这种情况下，Khanmigo 充当了一个强大的指南，但学生做了大部分工作。学生可以问 Khanmigo，“在写《了不起的盖茨比》作文时我应该考虑哪些要点？”它将建议主题，包括美国梦、社会阶层和不平等、爵士时代和咆哮的二十年代，以及小说中的关键象征，如绿灯、T.J.艾克尔伯格博士的眼睛和灰烬谷。当学生将他们写的几段文字交给大型语言模型阅读并批评其优缺点时，这项技术就很好用。它可以帮助学生进行反驳，并使他们写的内容更具说服力，鼓励他们像一个好的写作教练那样思考文章。再次强调，AI 导师并不为学生做工作。相反，它与他们一起工作。在几秒钟内，人工智能将提供反馈，突出改进的领域，并提供修改和完善工作的建议。即使学生在发展自己的声音和视角时，它也帮助他们塑造语气、声音和视角。在最好的情况下，一个基于教育的人工智能平台可以成为世界上最好的助手和合作者，它的评估是客观的，分析是透彻的，旨在做一件事，也只做一件事：提高学生的技能。

This will do much more than support the student. When Khanmigo shares the final output of the student/AI collaboration with the teacher, it will also report on the process and the degree to which the AI assisted. The teacher will get a much clearer sense of a student’s strengths and areas for improvement. Khanmigo can report back, “We worked on the paper for about four hours. Sal initially had trouble coming up with a thesis, but I was able to help him by asking some leading questions. The outlining went pretty smoothly. I just had to help him ensure that the conclusion really brought everything together. Sal did most of the writing. I just helped him tidy up the grammar and strengthen his argument in the third paragraph. Based on the rubric for the assignment, I’d recommend Sal get a B+ on the assignment. Here is a detailed breakdown of how I rated this paper in the dimensions on the rubric.”

这将远远超出对学生的支持。当 Khanmigo 与教师分享学生/人工智能合作的最终成果时，它还会报告过程以及人工智能的协助程度。教师将更清楚地了解学生的优势和需要改进的地方。Khanmigo 可以报告，“我们在这篇论文上工作了大约四个小时。萨尔最初在提出论点时遇到了困难，但我通过提出一些引导性问题帮助了他。提纲进行得很顺利。我只需要帮助他确保结论真的把所有东西都联系在一起了。萨尔完成了大部分写作。我只是帮助他整理语法， 并在第三段加强了他的论点。根据作业的评分标准，我建议萨尔在作业中得 B+。以下是我在评分标准各维度上对这篇论文的详细评分。”

It would also be difficult for a student to cheat using ChatGPT in this context. If they use ChatGPT to write the essay but simply copy and paste text into their assignment, Khanmigo will tell the teacher, “We didn’t work on this essay together, it just showed up, so we should be suspicious.”

在这种情况下，学生使用 ChatGPT 作弊也很困难。如果他们使用 ChatGPT 写作文，但只是将文本复制粘贴到作业中，Khanmigo 会告诉老师，“我们没有一起完成这篇文章，它只是出现了，所以我们应该怀疑。”

“点赞有美意，赞赏是鼓励”