※ 引述《plamc (普蘭可)》之銘言 : ※ 引述《plamc (普蘭可)》之銘言： : : 根本的問題就是要站在學生、國民的立場，好好想想怎樣的地理知識才是有用的 : : 然後講了n百遍的，要有歷史感 : : → hips: 準確來講是AI時代了，遇事不決問chatgpt。 09/21 00: 39 : 後搜尋引擎不一定就是大型語言模型，我認為這是死胡同 : 就是再怎麼砸錢下去只能達到娛樂用水準沒辦法到產業用水準 : 不過不管，反正就算這是死胡同也會發展出別的技術，總之就是會有AI幫你找答案 : 但是問問題的還是你 : 搜尋引擎也一樣，要知道關鍵字，也等於是你要知道你要問什麼問題 : 所以知道要問什麼問題的訓練才是最重要的 : 未來的教育不管是地理還是其他科目，或是已經不分科目了所以也沒有地理課 : 總之，重點是要問什麼問題的訓練 : 另一個重點就是，史地應該是要一起的，沒有歷史感的地理超級智障 : 尤其是氣候變遷時代，你要講的是變遷，不是講現在是什麼氣候 : 反之，沒有地理知識根本上就會無法理解歷史 : 真的不曉得當初哪個白癡把基本教育的地理歷史分開成兩個學科的 大模型不見得能達到產業水準 但是也有所謂的小模型 就是針對某個task特化，專注用那個領域的資料訓練 比方FSD自動駕駛 歷史學科，他需要讀過所有相關史料，論文（可能需要去數位化尚未數位化的東西），當代 的discourse，有能力比較不同來源的資料之間的邏輯矛盾，能cross reference，判斷資料 可靠度等等，我覺得還是有潛力。 而且關鍵是不管你個人覺得品質好不好，只要大眾覺得ok，他們就會去用，他們對這個世界 的認知就會高度依賴AI給他們的。 至於知道關鍵字，AI已經能夠反饋引導用戶進一步發問，copilot就會建議follow-up quest ions。所以你一開始很模糊的問也能繼續討論下去。 剛剛問了copilot does UN resolution 2758 includes Taiwan? 答：UN General Assembly Resolution 2758, adopted on October 25, 1971, recognized the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as “the only legitimate representative o f China to the United Nations” and removed the representatives of Chiang Kai-sh ek (the Republic of China, ROC) from the UN. （這段連結到維基） This effectively meant that Taiwan, which was governed by the ROC, was no longer represented in the United Nations under the name "China". （這段連結到一個華府智庫今年的報告） 然後它建議了幾個追加問題 包括 What is one China policy How has this resolution affected Taiwan's international status? Is there any ongoing dialogue between Taiwan and UN? 我個人是感覺，在宣傳戰方面 如何讓自己的言論易於被AI找到並引用，會是接下來的兵家必爭之地。 總之我再追問 but I've heard some say 2758 includes Taiwan, at least at the time when the reso lution was drafted that's what people thought. 它答：UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 does not explicitly mention Taiwan or the Republic of China (ROC). However, there has been ongoing debate and differing interpretations about the r esolution’s implications for Taiwan. Some argue that the resolution implicitly includes Taiwan under the PRC’s representation, while others, including recent statements from the U.S. Senate, assert that the resolution does not address Tai wan’s final political status. This ambiguity has led to various interpretations and diplomatic stances over th e years. If you have more questions or need further details, feel free to ask! 我再追問 Are you saying that the inclusion or not of Taiwan was ambiguous even when 2758 was drafted? It's not that originally people acknowledge it includes Taiwan and now due to circumstances change people want to take back what they thought? 它答 Yes, the ambiguity regarding Taiwan’s inclusion in UN General Assembly Resoluti on 2758 existed even when the resolution was drafted. Over the years, the PRC has interpreted the resolution to support its “One Chin a” principle, which asserts that Taiwan is part of China. However, this interpr etation has been contested by various countries and international bodies, includ ing recent statements from the U.S. Senate, which emphasize that the resolution does not address Taiwan’s final political status 所以它是說就連當時應該都是模糊的，而不是當時認為有包括，現在被翻盤。 所以你說當時認為包括，感覺也是在誤導我。差點被你騙了。 --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 23.243.152.215 (美國) ※ 文章網址: https://webptt.com/m.aspx?n=bbs/DummyHistory/M.1726858353.A.0C0.html