Learning to Prompt in the Classroom to Understand AI Limits: A pilot study
July 04, 2023 Β· Declared Dead Β· π International Conference of the Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Emily Theophilou, Cansu Koyuturk, Mona Yavari, Sathya Bursic, Gregor Donabauer, Alessia Telari, Alessia Testa, Raffaele Boiano, Davinia Hernandez-Leo, Martin Ruskov, Davide Taibi, Alessandro Gabbiadini, Dimitri Ognibene
arXiv ID
2307.01540
Category
cs.HC: Human-Computer Interaction
Cross-listed
cs.AI,
cs.CL
Citations
52
Venue
International Conference of the Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence
Last Checked
3 months ago
Abstract
Artificial intelligence's (AI) progress holds great promise in tackling pressing societal concerns such as health and climate. Large Language Models (LLM) and the derived chatbots, like ChatGPT, have highly improved the natural language processing capabilities of AI systems allowing them to process an unprecedented amount of unstructured data. However, the ensuing excitement has led to negative sentiments, even as AI methods demonstrate remarkable contributions (e.g. in health and genetics). A key factor contributing to this sentiment is the misleading perception that LLMs can effortlessly provide solutions across domains, ignoring their limitations such as hallucinations and reasoning constraints. Acknowledging AI fallibility is crucial to address the impact of dogmatic overconfidence in possibly erroneous suggestions generated by LLMs. At the same time, it can reduce fear and other negative attitudes toward AI. This necessitates comprehensive AI literacy interventions that educate the public about LLM constraints and effective usage techniques, i.e prompting strategies. With this aim, a pilot educational intervention was performed in a high school with 21 students. It involved presenting high-level concepts about intelligence, AI, and LLMs, followed by practical exercises involving ChatGPT in creating natural educational conversations and applying established prompting strategies. Encouraging preliminary results emerged, including high appreciation of the activity, improved interaction quality with the LLM, reduced negative AI sentiments, and a better grasp of limitations, specifically unreliability, limited understanding of commands leading to unsatisfactory responses, and limited presentation flexibility. Our aim is to explore AI acceptance factors and refine this approach for more controlled future studies.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Human-Computer Interaction
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Improving fairness in machine learning systems: What do industry practitioners need?
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Identifying Stable Patterns over Time for Emotion Recognition from EEG
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Questioning the AI: Informing Design Practices for Explainable AI User Experiences
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Learning for Sensor-based Human Activity Recognition: Overview, Challenges and Opportunities
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Educational data mining and learning analytics: An updated survey
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted