ChatGPT is Weird Today

I have been exploring the use of ChatGPT as a prewriting activity. I have been asking it to generate an outline on a topic which works great. I had read that ChatGPT could also create MindMaps. It can, but the entries are gibberish. I had read that ChatGPT has been having a problem with the spelling in graphics and this certainly seems to be the case.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Getting read and getting compensated

I have written online content since 2002. My first blog started then. I don’t really remember my motivation for making the initial effort, but I suspect it had something to do with exploring what at the time was a new way of using technology and the opportunity to share personal ideas. Because my interests focused mainly on how K12 classroom teachers could use technology and I had a relatively popular textbook on that subject, I wrote to explore ideas in the same domain and to share these ideas with educators whether they used our textbook or not. I didn’t think about my online writing as a source of revenue. It was college profs who made the decision to assign the textbook. There were no ads on the original blog and I hosted the blog on a server I ran myself. 

As blogs became more popular, some of my ideas changed. I had an idea for drastically reducing textbook prices and keeping textbooks more current by shortening textbooks and supplementing the material in textbooks with free online content. I began to explore the idea by creating a separate online site linked directly to our existing textbook as an experiment to see what type of use the online material would generate. Because there might then appear to be a financial benefit, I decided it was time to purchase server access outside of the university so there would be no questions about the inappropriate use of university resources. I was never able to convince our publisher to implement my plan for a $29 textbook, but the idea was planted in my mind and I continued to spend time working on online resources. 

Alternate ways of supplying content to students had become a personal interest. I never got into the OER approach. Knowing the amount of time it took to research and write educational materials and being aware that universities really don’t reward such efforts in comparison to research publications and grant submissions, I included the issue of compensation in my explorations. Google ads were relatively easy to add to my content and I gave it a try. Just to put things into a financial perspective, my monthly payments for server space and the fees I pay to own the names for my accounts (Learningaloud and Curmudgeon Speaks) total approximately $200 a year. I could probably lower this amount if I did not want as much control as I have over the types of things I can do on the server, but $200 a year is a great investment for a hobby. As far as ad revenue goes, my total take since starting the ad-enabled versions of my blogs (maybe since 2010) has been less than what I pay for one year of server use. What people may not know about ad revenue is that it is not the appearance of ads that generates revenue, but clicks on these ads. Thinking about how the ad revenue works I admit to being puzzled. I can’t remember ever having purposefully clicked on an ad. I must display a hundred ads a day just being online a lot, but I don’t produce clicks. Others must operate differentially for anyone to make the effort to write for ad revenue.

What I think is often not understood is that the textbook company and authors make zero money after the first sale. I remember our income as 12% of the price to bookstores (the wholesale price). The revision schedule for the book was three years (six semesters). We made most of the total income from the book in the second and third semesters. After that, the used book market took over. The “Technology for Teachers” course has a far smaller potential audience than courses required for large numbers of students (Psychology, Math, Chemistry) and the price for such books is significantly lower, but the competition is also less and there is a demand for frequent revisions because of changes in the field. We were able to generate five editions so we did pretty well. 

The textbook business is tough. There are many complaints about the cost of textbooks and there is no doubt the cost of new books is high. However, there are signifiant costs and risks to the companies and the investments they must make. I have some sympathy for the companies knowing the pressure they are under and the number of companies that have given up and sold their holdings so that the number of actual publishers has declined drastically. Our book was part of the holdings of three different companies in fifteen years. 

With all of this as background, I remain interested in where the support for educational content is headed. I am still exploring in my retirement and I have the time and body of content I can use to test different compensation models. My more recent explorations have included Kindle, Substack, and Medium. Kindle is an obvious alternative to commercial publishing companies. Authors self-publish at a much lower price (say $10-15 instead of $100). Authors are pretty much on their own in generating interest in their books. Substack and Medium are probably not best understood as book sources. Both provide an audience that authors try to attract. The typical approach is to offer some content for free in hopes of attracting readers who will then pay a subscription fee. Authors typically continue with some free content and some paywalled in hopes of finding a balance that will grow their subscribers. Substack and Medium use different subscription models. With Substack, a reader subscribes to the work of individual authors paying maybe $50 or so to each author. With Medium, readers subscribe to the service ($60 a year) and then read all they want from any author. Medium then has a system to divide up the subscription fees based on how much attention is devoted to the content of a given author. It seems to me that Medium offers the best value. I do subscribe to some Substack content, but I keep thinking I could purchase three Kindle books for each Substack subscription and I would get more out of these three books. 

I am now trying to repurpose one of my textbooks for Medium. It is hard to say how this will go. The service is really not designed for books although I have published a book as a series of chapters. It also does not seem that K12 educators are not that well represented among Medium readers as the content tagged K12 seems limited. I like the idea of micropayments so I am giving Medium a try just to see what level of interest I can generate. 

I welcome your interest. You can view the free Medium content without paying a subscription and I have some content available that is not behind a paywall. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Getting read and getting compensated

Litmaps for topic exploration

The type of writing I do requires that I identify topics of interest and then review the research relevant to that topic to combine with my knowledge to write content relevant to educational issues. My career has allowed me to witness the growth in tools for accomplishing this task. In the old days, the task was heavily based on using the reference sections of key publications to identify important older publications that should be reviewed. It was far easier to look back than forward. This changed with online services such as Research Rabbit, Google Scholar and similar services. These services provide the reference list from a given article, but also more recent articles that cite the targeted article.

Litmaps provides an interesting way to examine this same data. You begin the process with a seed map in which you identify an influential article and the service returns a visual display identifying cited articles and articles citing the seed. From there, it is possible to review the abstracts of articles from the map and explore connections among articles. The system saves searches so you can return to the information you have identified without having to find a way to export the information as you work with a topic over time.

The following is the display you first encounter with the option to propose a search seed.

One of the topics that interests me is the pro and con debates over whether reading and note taking should be conducted using a digital device or paper. One of the articles often cited when proposing that note-taking is best done with pen and paper was published in 2018. The title “The pen is mightier than the keyboard” conveys the orientation of the paper and sounds interesting when referencing this research area in the popular press. It is the type of source that makes a good starting point for Litmaps. In the following image, the seed article appears as a blue dot and links indicate earlier and later connections with this study,

Selecting one of the linked studies provides an update to the display. You see the abstract and other connections to the linked study.

Litmap is free for limited use and there is a lower rate for educational use. The pricing options are shown below.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Litmaps for topic exploration

Conspiracy Theories

DALL-E image

The Associated Press has put together a great resource on conspiracy theories. The resource covers examples and analysis for researchers. This would seem a great starting point for educators. The resources strives to be politically neutral and includes a historical perspective.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Conspiracy Theories

Congress and Online Sexual Exploitation

Perhaps you saw parts of the grilling of some tech executives as part of committee hearings related to Big Tech and the Online Child Sexual Exploitation Act. The committee had arranged to have parents of children who had committed suicide in the audience and kept asking the tech executives to apologize and address these parents. It was difficult and I suppose made for great political television. I admit to having some sympathy for the executives put in this situation.

DALL-E Image

My reaction to these issues is to ask myself what I think would be necessary to make the situation better. I see the present situation as the equivalent of the politicians yelling at the big tech people claiming this is your fault so fix it. I keep thinking if in their place I would respond by asking just what is it you would propose we should change.

With this situation and the anti Section 230 politicians, the tech companies that essentially provide an opportunity for bad actors to act are the target. The problem with tech more generally is the same tools for accomplishing great things can be used by bad actors to do terrible things. There is no simple way to go after the bad actors so politicians go after the tech companies. It seems to me one solution would be to require the users of online technologies to establish their identities. I understand this would be challenging, but we seem to have figured it out when it comes to driver’s licenses and passports. Without anonymity, it would seem possible to go after bad actors. I understand there would be an issue here with equity and some users have very legitimate reasons for being anonymous, but this is a choice that could be made.

My point is that this is concrete and politicians could make this a requirement. Why not? Again, based on this example, Section 230 argues against such requirements because such expectations could probably be addressed by big tech, but would not be possible to implement by any of the rest of us with an online presence (even a blog) that could allow public comment. Competition with big tech would be eliminated.

I do think it essential to address big tech, but I have a much wider set of concerns. The limited options are the type of issue I think politicians should address as a root issue. Capitalism assumes things improve when individuals can move to an alternative providing the circumstances they desire. There are few options and the lack of interoperability between services limits choice.

If you are interested in this issue, I would recommend a recent post from danah boyd (I forget why she does not use capital letters). boyd has researched and written about adolescents and technology for years. Her analysis takes a broader view and while recognizing a role for online technology proposes that adolescents and the rest of us live in a messed up and toxic culture such that addressing tech alone will result in little change.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Congress and Online Sexual Exploitation

Big tech squeezing out universities 

This is a recent Swisher podcast and is relevant to the discussion of power of big tech. Fei Fei Li is a prominent AI researcher. One of the more interesting issues from this discussion was Li’s effort to describe how the big companies had a position of control over AI relative to the role often played by higher education. The investment required to explore AI seems far too great for even the most well-funded institutions to take on. This situation has eliminated the more careful and nuanced role higher education can play in evaluating ethical and human issues. The focus in big tech corporations quickly focuses on profit opportunities. Li proposed that government assist multiple institutions in developing a consortium to pursue a wider range of research and evaluative topics.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Big tech squeezing out universities 

Is something wrong with higher education?

I am concerned that political pressures and market forces are narrowing the goals of colleges and universities, steering these institutions towards an approach focused predominantly on job preparation. However, is this focus on career readiness truly the sole purpose of higher education, or is there more that we should demand from our academic journeys?

Colleges and universities have traditionally been bastions of learning, not just in the professional sense, but in a way that prepares us for the diverse challenges of life. This includes fostering critical thinking, nurturing an understanding of societal inequities, and equipping us to be responsible citizens in an ever-evolving global society.

This post delves into this complex and multifaceted issue, exploring the essential roles that colleges and universities should play in shaping not just our careers, but our characters, our communities, and our perspectives on the world. We must ask ourselves: are we expecting an education that truly prepares us for the many challenges of life, or are we being funneled into a narrow focus on occupational readiness, at the expense of a richer, more comprehensive educational experience?

The perceptions surrounding the priorities of higher education are influenced by a confluence of factors, each contributing to the growing skepticism about the role and value of colleges and universities. A major concern fueling this debate is the issue of high college debt. As tuition fees soar, students and their families are increasingly questioning the return on investment of a college education. The burden of this debt often lingers for years post-graduation, leading many to wonder if the education provided is worth the financial strain. Coupled with this is the rising cost of textbooks and other educational resources, adding to the financial pressures faced by students. These economic factors inevitably color public perception, turning the spotlight onto the immediate employability and earning potential of graduates rather than the broader educational objectives.

Additionally, there’s a growing sentiment that graduates are not adequately prepared for the job market. Employers often cite a skills gap, pointing to a mismatch between what students learn in college and the practical skills required in the workplace. This perception challenges the effectiveness of higher education in fulfilling its most basic objective: preparing students for employment. Compounding these concerns are claims of political bias within educational institutions. Critics argue that educators often impart a particular political ideology, influencing students’ perspectives and potentially detracting from a more balanced and objective educational experience. This criticism often leads to questions about the neutrality and overall purpose of higher education.

Moreover, the relevance of certain areas of study is increasingly under scrutiny. Critics argue that many academic disciplines, especially within the liberal arts and humanities, do not directly prepare students for specific job roles, leading to questions about their practical value in an employment-centric society. This viewpoint underscores a fundamental shift in expectations, where the measure of an education’s worth is increasingly seen through the lens of immediate job readiness and less through the development of a well-rounded, critically thinking individual. These complex factors together fuel the debate over the priorities of higher education, questioning whether its goals should be broad and holistic or narrow and occupation-focused.

The legitimacy of claims regarding the priorities and challenges of higher education is a multifaceted issue, requiring a nuanced understanding of the economic, social, and ideological dimensions at play.

Firstly, the question of whether college costs are unreasonably high is not straightforward. On one hand, the rising cost of higher education is undeniable, with tuition fees increasing significantly over the past few decades. However, this increase is not solely due to the institutions’ drive for profit. Higher education has evolved to encompass far more than classroom and laboratory experiences. Today’s students often have high expectations for their college experience, which extend to campus amenities like advanced living and dining options, state-of-the-art health clubs, and vibrant entertainment and athletic programs. These amenities, while enhancing the student experience, come with substantial costs. Universities find themselves in a competitive market where such facilities can be crucial in attracting students and their tuition dollars. This necessitates a delicate balance for administrators between providing an enriching campus life and managing the escalating costs associated with these extras.

Regarding the support for public institutions, the role of state funding is critical. Public universities rely heavily on state appropriations, but in recent years, many states have reduced their financial support for higher education. This reduction has shifted a greater portion of the cost to students and their families, contributing to the rise in student debt. The irony here is that the politicians who often criticize the high cost of college and the resulting student debt are also in control of state budgets that could alleviate some of these financial burdens. This creates a complex dynamic where the very bodies questioning the cost of higher education are also responsible for funding decisions that impact these costs.

The issue of liberal bias in higher education is another intricate matter. It’s true that certain fields of study, such as education, social work, and psychology, might naturally align more with liberal perspectives due to the nature of their subject matter, which often focuses on social improvement and human welfare. Furthermore, those who choose careers in academia might be more inclined towards liberal values, influencing the ideological leaning of these fields. However, this does not necessarily equate to a systemic bias across all of higher education. Universities traditionally encourage diverse viewpoints and critical thinking, and many institutions make concerted efforts to ensure a broad range of perspectives is represented in their curricula and faculty. Nevertheless, the perception of liberal bias persists, partly due to the broader societal and political polarization, and it remains a contentious issue in discussions about the role and nature of higher education.

In conclusion, the claims about the priorities and challenges of higher education are complex and cannot be easily categorized as entirely legitimate or unfounded. They are influenced by a range of factors, including economic pressures, societal expectations, competitive market dynamics, state funding policies, and ideological leanings. These factors interplay in intricate ways, shaping the landscape of higher education and the ongoing debates about its purpose and value in modern society.

In summary, the legitimacy of the claims about the priorities and challenges of higher education cannot be easily resolved. They are influenced by economic factors, societal expectations, state funding policies, and ideological leanings. These elements intertwine, shaping the evolving landscape of higher education and the ongoing debate about its purpose in contemporary society. Unlike other posts I write, much of what appears here is a matter of impressions and personal values that you may or may not hold. Part of my reaction is based on an impression that we are in a time when education at all levels is held responsible for much that has not historically been the case and institutions become an easy target for politicians who know that state and federal sources fund most educational institutions.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Is something wrong with higher education?

K12 Curricular Wars

Larry Cuban, a writer frequently addressing historical issues in education, recently addressed the multiple recurring controversies in education and wondered without resolution why these battles (e.g., the recent National political interest in how reading is taught in the elementary grades) continue generation after generation. 

His post focuses on two main questions:

  What content and skills should be taught to U.S. children and youth?

  How should both be taught?

Cuban makes an interesting observation that matches my experience.  

 “ …few teachers get involved in these “wars” or teach lessons clearly on one side or the other of the issue once they close their classroom doors.” 

Cuban notes that in the early 1950s, policy elites including federal and state officials began to “educationalize” national social, economic, and political problems. This meant they expected schools to solve these problems, giving them more control over curricular policy. These expectations are examined and reexamined on cable television political channels. Criticism is what educators hear and the result has been many educators leaving the field and fewer college students looking at education as a career

Cuban’s observations reminded me of a claim I heard about the attitude people have about K-12 education. Parents are quick to complain about education, but much less so about the schools their kids attend and their students’ teachers. There seems a vague need to complain but the experiences of parents make it difficult for them to have a specific target. Some complain about the books in the library, but that seems the extent of the specific changes they can vocalize. 

Note: I have resorted to using AI to generate supporting images for some of my posts.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on K12 Curricular Wars

Apple News+

I have discovered the solution to a problem that has baffled me and others probably found to be no challenge. I often encounter references to news articles that appear to interest me, but when I try to read the articles I find they are behind a paywall. I understand the issue of online content needing to support content creators and services so I have no real issue with this situation beyond wishing there was a reasonable micropayment system that could be applied. Anyway, I subscribe to the NYTimes and the local online paper, but find myself interested in articles appearing in the Wall Street Journal, New Yorker, Atlantic and many other news outlets.

We purchased an Apple News+ subscription as a way to expand to many (Washington Post not included) of the outlets that interest me. The problem I encounter is finding articles I want in any but the most current issue. Often, what I have is a title and not the citation providing publication date and page number.

The obvious solution is a search feature which I make use of on my desktop machine, but I was baffled by where the search box was when trying to track down an article from my phone. I finally figured out the issue and will demonstrate both the problem and solution here for anyone interested.

The following is the display I see when connecting to Apple News+. No icon that says search. The solution is to select Following. I fear I have become very literal in my old age because I needed to see a search icon or a search box.

If you select Following, you are taken to a display that contains the sources you frequently consult and at the top of the page a search box.

Perhaps this was obvious to everyone else, but I was confused for some time. Whether this information is helpful or not, I do recommend Apple News+ as a solution to the “I can’t subscribe to every news source I might use once a month” problem.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Apple News+

OpenAI Mess

The conflict between OpenAI’s Board of Directors and Sam Altman was a complex and controversial event. Altman was initially fired by the Board, but then reinstated after several Board members resigned. A New Yorker article provides a detailed account of the situation, including the role of the OpenAI Charter and the different perspectives of Altman and the Board. Educators may be interested in this controversy because OpenAI is responsible for ChatGPT and this service has received a good deal of classroom attention. For some, the OpenAI controversy led to concerns regarding whether ChatGPT was an appropriate tool.

The Charter of OpenAI states that the organization’s mission is to ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity and is to be developed in a careful and safe manner. The Board felt that Altman was not adhering to this mission and that he was prioritizing the development of AI over safety concerns. Altman, on the other hand, argued that the Board was being too cautious and that the only way to make progress in AI was to move quickly.

Fast progress required funding which Altman and developers thought could be provided by sale of focused ChatGPT applications and copilot development in collaboration with Microsoft. OpenAI also developed a relationship with Microsoft. Microsoft initially invested one billion and now a total of 13 billion.

Microsoft was interested in the collaboration to support the development of copilot and differences in how AI progress should be achieved would not exactly meet the expectations of careful and safe. Microsoft’s way of thinking about copilot and AI capabilities provided the public reasoned that what was made available would not have to be perfect and users would understand this was the case. Users would understand AI recommendations should be treated as suggestions that require evaluation and these same users would report when recommendations were flawed. Deployment “in the wild” under such circumstances was the best way to discover problems the developers could then fix. 

The lack of trust that was initially given as an explanation for Altman’s termination was reported in the article to be related to a conflict between Altman and Board member Helen Toner. Toner had written a paper critical of OpenAI. In comparing notes, Board members discovered that Altman had been making claims that members had suggested getting rid of Toner and this was evidently not the case (more on the Toner conflict). 

The New Yorker article provides a valuable perspective on the OpenAI conflict. It sheds light on the different factors that contributed to the conflict, and it offers insights into the different ways in which AI can be developed and used.

The article also raises important questions about the future of AI. How can we ensure that AI is developed in a way that benefits all of humanity? How can we balance the need for safety with the need for progress? These are complex questions, but they are essential to the future of AI.

The New Yorker article is a valuable resource for anyone who is interested in the future of AI. It provides a balanced and comprehensive account of the OpenAI conflict, and it raises important questions about the development and use of AI.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on OpenAI Mess