As long as we keep having to ask, "ChatGPT answered this questions but was it right?" it is a nonstarter. It is currently a novelty, not a tool. To be a tool it needs to be reliable.
I think perfect reliability is not absolutely necessary. None of the human teachers that I have learned from were perfectly reliable even in their area of expertise.
Thankfully, skepticism seems to be an innate human trait.
Not the OP, but I am very curious what subjects you have experimented with and whether you used any special prompt techniques.
My experience has been quite on the contrary: on the few subjects I have some understanding of, ChatGPT appears to do fine for basic questions and attempts to summarize concepts at a high-level, but any attempt at drilling in to specifics seem to cause it to hallucinate quite a bit, particularly with regards to concrete facts or citations or anything of that sort.
Can you give more detail as to the hallucinations that you found?
Response:
1. Anderson, R., & Moore, T. (2006). The Economics of Information Security. Science, 314(5799), 610-613. DOI: 10.1126/science.1130992
2. Schneier, B. (2015). Data and Goliath: The Hidden Battles to Collect Your Data and Control Your World. WW Norton & Company. DOI: 10.1080/13600834.2015.1093541
3. Fung, B., & Graham, M. (2019). AI and cybersecurity: Safety, privacy, and security in the age of AI. IEEE Security & Privacy, 17(3), 10-14. DOI: 10.1109/MSEC.2019.2904199
#1 is good. #2 is a book (the DOI points to nothing). I can't find any evidence #3 exists. I don't consider this a difficult question to ask of cybersecurity students, let alone teachers.
As far as it being able to explain base concepts in a conversational manner and helping bridge gaps in my own understanding, it has been very helpful to me.
I'm sure there are certain subjects where this will work better than others, but I would guess especially for most K-12 classwork, ChatGPT even with its current warts would be a net gain for many students in helping to increase their understanding just by talking with it.
Apparently GPT-4 is much more accurate and natural in its responses.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/australian-mayor-readies-...
EDIT: I commented that is often wrong when talking about RF analog circuits or motor control, but this is a rabbit hole. It's like a bad textbook.
At my day job we get a pretty good idea of the shortcomings of a typical teacher. We are also getting a very good, measurable, idea of what LLMs are capable of in this area. There’s skeptical, and there’s being in denial.