Transactive Memory & The External Brain
This was later extended to computers and the web. Computers allow us to store and search for external information, whether it was information we ourselves recorded earlier, or the work of someone else. This use of computers to store and retrieve information became called "the external brain."
Generative AI as External Brain
ChatGPT can brainstorm. It can draw connections between ideas and concepts. It can retrieve information aggregated across its many Internet sources that it was trained on.
When ChatGPT is used as a "thought partner," it becomes a brain extension of those who wield it. While the idea of an "external brain" originally only applied to using external tools for information storage, search, and retrieval, it can easily be extended to the use of generative AI. But what happens when our "external brain" is operated by a for-profit company, and when its performance can be upgraded for a monthly fee?
Unequal External Brain Access
ChatGPT is available for free, to anyone with an account in most countries. It's created and owned by OpenAI, which was initially founded as a nonprofit, but in 2019 shifted to form a for-profit subsidiary to help fund their research.
In February 2023, OpenAI launched ChatGPT Plus. For $20/mo, customers can gain access to additional ChatGPT features, including priority access, and, notably, access to GPT-4, a drastically more advanced version of the model used in the free version of ChatGPT.
As educators, what will happen when wealthier students can access an upgraded model, which is substantially more capable, flexible, and, most likely, better at avoiding detection by teachers? How do we handle the inherent inequities this produces, when students from higher-SES backgrounds can upgrade their "external brains"?
Also, if you've tried out ChatGPT, you might have noticed the text at the bottom near the prompt box that says "Free Research Preview":
While there is currently a version of ChatGPT available for free in most countries, the company has made no promise that that will remain true.
When asked (before the launch of ChatGPT Plus) whether ChatGPT will remain free forever, the CEO of OpenAI said, "We will have to monetize it somehow at some point; the compute costs are eye-watering." While OpenAI has since then monetized the product by introducing ChatGPT Plus, there is still the concern of the cost to the company of free users. When free users first log in to the product, they are still greeted with a message saying, "This is a free research preview. Our goal is to get external feedback in order to improve our systems and make them safer." As time passes, the free users will provide diminishing returns for the company, as the feedback that the users provide will become more redundant and less useful. It would not be unprecedented for the company to close off unpaid unlimited access when profit concerns and operating costs grow, which many companies have done. After all, OpenAI is already limiting ChatGPT access during peak usage times for free users, giving priority to their paid customers. These are all completely understandable business decisions, but these decisions can also have profound negative impacts on our education system.
What will happen to our education system when access to advanced generative AI models becomes the separation between the haves and have-nots? What happens when our students become too dependent on their "external brain" and access to it is cut off?
As a future educator, I don't know the answers to these questions, but these are all considerations that I have floating in my mind as I think about how I'll integrate technology and generative AI in my classes. There is a fine line to draw between giving students tools that will help raise the floor, and allowing access to tools that further existing inequities.
"What will happen to our education system when access to advanced generative AI models becomes the separation between the haves and have-nots? What happens when our students become too dependent on their "external brain" and access to it is cut off?"
ReplyDeleteWe've worried about this since the personal computer came out in 1980, we worried about it again with the Internet in 1996 and we then again in 2007 with the iPhone. Of course we also worried about this with the printing press...so this worry is one to always have and yet somehow we humans continue to use our brains in amazing ways to continue to propel us forward. I like to think of it the other way. Now that I don't have to use brain power for this....what am I going to be able to do with that brain power? What new idea, new concept, might we discover because we no longer are spending brain power on remembering every country and every capital.
Wow Caleb, thank you. This question of equity of access for students is huge - I like what Jeff has said above about using our brains and time in new ways to propel us into different, unknown ideas or ways of doing things. And the question of equity becomes more poignant in light of his comment - that those who have access to the better tools (who can pay for the better tools) will have a leg-up on those who do not. While I think Jeff would say it's our responsibility as educators to find ways to access those tools for all our students so they can learn to use them, it does the beg the question "what about post-school?", will students then lose access to the betters tools they had and have to re-learn older ways of doing things? There is a larger question about public vs private ownership of these society-changing tools. Thanks for this, Caleb, lots of food for thought.
ReplyDelete