Kaufmann: ChatGPT: Should Language Teachers Be Worried?

[Cainntear]

Yes, yes, it's very nuanced. And the nuanced solution (as per Galaxy) is housing discrimination, subsidies for Irish-speaking businesses, complete with fines if they serve Rick's daughter in English. Why not a brief prison sentence, too, for romantic engagement with Anglophones (make that for both parties, just to be fair), since that's such a big risk for not passing the language on to the next generation?

Honestly, studying people for having a considered opinion rather then simply accepting your uninformed position seems more appropriate to YouTube than a discussion forum.

I recently removed the last forum member from my "foe" list and returned to a list of zero. I will now be adding one.

My apologies to the rest of the membership for contributing to the off-topic exchange here.

[Irena]

Honestly, studying people for having a considered opinion rather then simply accepting your uninformed position seems more appropriate to YouTube than a discussion forum.

The "considered opinion" recommends a bunch of highly discriminatory practices. And as Galaxy himself said:

It's not quick, it's not flashy -- and it's probably not legal -- but it's basically the only way.

Not legal? Good! And good to know the Irish haven't quite lost their marbles.

[galaxyrocker]

Are the irish learners who are learning bad/pidgin irish (or good irish for that matter) using that language to talk to each other? Are they bringing up their childen to speak it? If so then there's hope for it, even if it's not the same language as classic irish. Languages are not neat and static... classic irish is that which is spoken by native speakers but there could be space for the pidgin form.

And nobody has a problem with that. The problem I have is when it's wielded as a weapon against traditional Irish, or in place of it, as with ChatGPT.

If there aren't enough native speakers of classic irish to sustain the language, and adult learners aren't getting enough language to speak correct classic irish, then classic irish simply can't survive. If there are ethnic irish who learn as an adult as art of an irish identity - they have that right, even if it's a somewhat garbled form; if they use it and bring up their children, then as I understand the rules, it's a legit language. Even if it's different than classic irish.

The thing is there are. The issue is much more sociological than a mere numbers game.

Not legal? Good! And good to know the Irish haven't quite lost their marbles.

Heaven forbid some people think saving a language and culture is more important than letting a bunch of English speakers move wherever they damn well please, as if they're entitled to be able to go anywhere and have everyone cater to them without giving a damn about the locality. It's the same mindset that exists behind AirBnB, which is destroying communities everywhere. Also, housing discrimination is common, under several names. Planning and zoning is one name for it.

And it's not a 'reservation', it's literally just an Irish speaking area. A place that already exists, just a bit more stringent. People can visit, people can leave, but the primary language of the area should be Irish and the government should work to ensure that and that Irish speaking businesses come in. It's not happening right now, and the places are being flooded with holiday homes and becoming part of suburbia (in Galway), pricing the actual residents out.

But I'm not officially done with this conversation. I love seeing how everyone who's never interacted with Irish or any minority language has more opinions on what's correct than the people who have and who know the sociolinguistic situation of the language and the creole variant.

And none of that changes the primary issue: if ChatGPT could really 'learn' it'd know the difference between good Irish and pidgin Irish. It can only mimic.

[Irena]

Not legal? Good! And good to know the Irish haven't quite lost their marbles.

Heaven forbid some people think saving a language and culture is more important than letting a bunch of English speakers move wherever they damn well please, as if they're entitled to be able to go anywhere and have everyone cater to them without giving a damn about the locality. It's the same mindset that exists behind AirBnB, which is destroying communities everywhere. Also, housing discrimination is common, under several names. Planning and zoning is one name for it.

You want to restrict where people can live based on what language they speak. If that's your cure, then it's worse than the disease. AirBNB, planning, and zoning have nothing to do with it.

[Irena]

And none of that changes the primary issue: if ChatGPT could really 'learn' it'd know the difference between good Irish and pidgin Irish. It can only mimic.

It's learned to mimic, and that's very much a form of learning.

[Cainntear]

Are the irish learners who are learning bad/pidgin irish (or good irish for that matter) using that language to talk to each other? Are they bringing up their childen to speak it? If so then there's hope for it, even if it's not the same language as classic irish. Languages are not neat and static... classic irish is that which is spoken by native speakers but there could be space for the pidgin form.

And nobody has a problem with that. The problem I have is when it's wielded as a weapon against traditional Irish, or in place of it, as with ChatGPT.

Or to put it in a slightly different manner:

The problem isn't that people have created a new language; it's that people are pretending that they haven't.

galaxyrocker's original complaint was about the fact that ChatGPT can't tell the difference between the two.
Why not?
Because it is told categorically that they are the same language, precisely because speakers of the neologous form are insisting that they speak "Irish".

And none of that changes the primary issue: if ChatGPT could really 'learn' it'd know the difference between good Irish and pidgin Irish. It can only mimic.

Except that it can learn, but it can only learn how to exhibit the same prejudices as are prevalent in human society. As I've already said, AIs have to be deliberately programmed and/or trained to avoid picking up views that are considered objectionable.

Look at Microsoft's chatbot named Tay, for example. It learned from people, and it was deliberately trolled into presenting racist views. I didn't realise Tay was quite so long ago. Open AI clearly spent a lot of time preventing their own AI from espousing objectionable views before releasing it to the public. Notice also that Microsoft have hired in ChatGPT, clearly suggesting that the problem of ethical views was a far bigger problem than one of the world's absolutely largest software companies were capable of dealing with.

The problem is that they have prepped it to reject very specific viewpoints that humans already agree are objectionable. This means AI naturally acts towards "dictatorship of the majority" politics.

Let's have a look at how ChatGPT 3.5 answers the question What is the best way to preserve the irish language?

There are several ways to preserve the Irish language, also known as Gaelic or Gaeilge. Here are some effective strategies:

1. Encouraging bilingualism: One of the best ways to preserve the Irish language is to encourage bilingualism, where people learn Irish alongside English. This can be achieved by promoting Irish language classes in schools, universities, and community centers. Providing incentives, such as scholarships or job opportunities, for people who learn and use Irish can also help.
   
2. Using the language in everyday life: Another way to preserve Irish is to use the language in everyday life, such as in public signage, media, and literature. Encouraging Irish speakers to use the language in their daily interactions, and creating opportunities for them to do so, can also help.
   
3. Promoting Irish language culture: Promoting Irish language culture, such as music, dance, and literature, can help to raise awareness of the language and its importance. This can be achieved through events, festivals, and cultural activities.
   
4. Supporting Irish language education: Providing support for Irish language education, such as funding for schools and teachers, can help to ensure that the language is taught effectively and efficiently.
   
5. Developing technology and resources: Developing technology and resources for learning and using the Irish language can also help to preserve it. This can include developing Irish language software, apps, and online resources.

Overall, the key to preserving the Irish language is to promote its use, encourage bilingualism, and foster a culture of appreciation and pride in the language.

Notice that the term "native speakers" doesn't appear even once, and the only mention of "Irish speakers" is in the item that talks about everyday life: item 2. But the idea of people who can speak the language actually speaking the language is demoted to playing second fiddle to road signs bythe phrase "can also help".

Notice that although I used the word "preserve" and never mentioned "learning" or "revitalisation", ChatGPT implied priority for non-speakers learning it by including 2 points focused on language learning (points 1 and 4) and by giving learning Irish at least equal status to using it in the point about technology (point 5). I would even argue that by placing the word learning before using in the phrase "technology and resources for learning and using the Irish language", ChatGPT is acting in a way that actually promotes learning over using by virtue of the choice of word order, and that is really in line with the whole thing of learning being the core message in ChatGPT's answer.

i.e. ChatGPT has learned to repeat the prevalent claims that are prevalent among the general public, most of whom are only pro-Irish in theory and don't like the idea that they might actually have to go through even the slightest inconvenience for any genuinely positive change to occur.

[Editing to add: notice how again the ChatGPT has segregated things into a series of options rather than identifying these things as components of a strategy.]

[Cainntear]

Oh yes, and it effectively contradicts itself:

Would Irish road signs be more effective that everyday use of Irish in conversation, if the goal is preservation of the language?

Irish road signs can certainly help to raise awareness of the Irish language and its importance, but they alone may not be enough to preserve the language. While road signs can be an effective way to promote the use of Irish in public spaces, everyday use of Irish in conversation is crucial for the language's preservation. The best way to preserve the Irish language is to encourage its use in all aspects of daily life, including conversation, media, literature, education, and public signage.

Encouraging bilingualism and the use of Irish in everyday interactions is essential for ensuring that the language is spoken and understood by future generations. It is also important to create a positive attitude towards the language, fostering a sense of pride and ownership among Irish speakers. Therefore, while Irish road signs can be a helpful tool, they are just one part of a comprehensive strategy to preserve the Irish language.

There is no consistency within the system as it doesn't create an internal belief system, and its answer is can vary wildly depending on the question asked.

And it can be counter-factual if the public discourse is counter-factual. I got it to say this:

Research has shown that children who are exposed to a second language at an early age have a greater capacity to learn and use the language fluently. Additionally, immersion in the language, where children are exposed to the language for a significant portion of their day, has been shown to be effective in producing bilingual and multilingual speakers.

Note that this echoes many popular public policy statements, but that these statements never actually match what expert opinion is: primary kids in a non-native majority typically fail to acquire a native-like model and can in fact be outperformed by children who start later in life.

This is actually a good example of my worst fear regarding AI: people will defer to AI's judgement, when AI does not actually exhibit any judgement whatsoever; "computer says it, so it must be true".

[Sae]

Having played around with ChatGPT and looking at it from the perspective of a student of language:

I think one of the biggest problem for teachers would be ensuring that students don't use it to cheat.

I've used it with Vietnamese, Mongolian and Tuvan, as it seems my target languages probably give a useful range for testing in that: it probably has a lot of Vietnamese training material, a moderate amount of Mongolian and not much Tuvan.

When I look at the value I get from a teacher and why I have one, I cannot see ChatGPT replacing it. But maybe I can see it being useful for introverts who struggle with conversation for people learning a target language where ChatGPT has a high degree of accuracy.

But for me personally, I end up using it to provide prompts to work from and see if it can help me with my understanding of something grammatical I don't recognise, like a I see a word with a suffix I don't know, for example, "If 'meddekh' means 'to know' then what does it mean when it's in this form 'meddeggui' and can you explain it?" which then may give me a starting point where I can then go look up the rule independently based on what it explains. Or if i see two forms that seem to mean the same thing, see if it can explain the difference and then go independently verify it.

However, I can maybe see those who are self-motivated and self-managed can get more used out of it. But I also think that category of people are more inclined to self-study anyway. If I am to look at ChatGPT in its ideal usage, I'd see it as complementary to teaching and to self-study.

But I know, we also don't get an ideal use out of things and I know there is a group of people who embrace AI a bit too much IMO. Like those who're calling themselves "AI Artists", arguing that because they wrote the prompt but I've commissioned art before and have had to tell the artist what I want and provide her information she needed, at no point am I calling myself the artist...but that's a whole other discussion related to AI. But referencing it probably illustrates what I am getting at, people who are a little in too deep, that maybe they probably would use an AI to teach them. And maybe as AI improves the more people depend on it, however, I think the emphasis on it is that it should always be complementary.

As I do see an issue with over dependence on AI. I think maybe for certain target languages, it is highly accurate and not likely to give you wrong or bad information (and doesn't replace the value of a human either, but I'll get onto that). But when you deviate from it, then I would trust it less. I wasn't able to spot problems with its Vietnamese, but it made mistakes with Mongolian and with Tuvan it straight up gives false information. And it's not lying, as I've seen Jordan Peterson keep claiming (as he seems to think it's human), it's just relying on the information it has, and it arbitrates what answers to give based on probability. It means if it has a lack of information, it may give something that's inaccurate, but it seems correct so it doesn't reject it. Like with Tuvan, it'll pull in Kyrgyz and Mongolian to fill in the gaps. It's wrong, but it knows the relationship between these languages but it doesn't know to reject this information or see why it's false. And whilst I was impressed by how Bing's implementation was able to deal with Tuvan, but it still had these flaws.

But I know there are also people who will take what ChatGPT says as gospel, whereas I see it as a starting point and should be treated in a similar way as Wikipedia, what it says is probably true, but understand there's a probability for false information and you should take it with a pinch of salt and make sure you have the means to differentiate the different between good and bad information, which I think as a language learner you'll have a hard time doing if its your only source. Heck...we've even had the bizarre case here where somebody was using ChatGPT to make their own argument for them.

Kaufmann makes a fair point where he says the classroom is a social place and of course, I think that applies to 1-on-1 tutoring too, which is also social. From this we can get motivation and enthusiasm but I also see a benefit in how you become conversational in a language and are able to work towards natural human conversations within the language. An AI I don't think can provide that. Conversation is still a social skill and you're not going to develop that against an AI, even if it's really good at emulating one. And an AI will lack some of the initiative a good teacher/tutor can provide or get to know their students, their needs and how to react to them. An AI relies more on what information you give it and tell it. And I think there are things a human will just find easier to help with.

[Cainntear]

I don't think AI would be able to distinguish languages from dialects based on input from humans who disagree and are inconsistent with this definition (as applied to existing languages/dialects).

...which piqued my curiosity.
Is Neapolitan a language or a dialect?

Neapolitan is considered by many linguists to be a distinct language, separate from Italian. However, it is also often referred to as a dialect of Italian, as it shares many similarities with standard Italian and is often considered a regional variation of the language.

Neapolitan is spoken in the region of Campania in southern Italy, particularly in and around the city of Naples. It has its own unique vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation, which are distinct from standard Italian. Additionally, Neapolitan has a long history of literature, poetry, and songs, which have been passed down through generations of speakers.

Despite being considered a separate language by some linguists, Neapolitan is not an official language recognized by the Italian government, and Italian is the only official language of Italy.

This is typical of what's written abou dialects. Even though they're often termed "dialetti italiani" (~=Italian dialects) rather than "dialetti d'italiano" (dialects of Italian), there's still an assumption of the meaning of the latter term even when using the former.

No attempt to justify or shoot down the "often considered a regional variation of the language" bit, which would be bad enough with other European countries where the main language is often mistakenly believed to have existed forever, but in Italy you're got a language that was half selected, half invented as the national language and every local variety is basically more of a language.

So here we see (once again) AI taking on majority views rather than considering the evidence for itself!

[Sae]

So here we see (once again) AI taking on majority views rather than considering the evidence for itself!

This definitely highlights a limit with AI. AI is impressive but I think many people think it's smarter than it actually is and it doesn't understand any of the subject matter it reports on and cannot arbitrate what is accurate and what isn't.