"You have a 27% 'AI' issue in here" • Hacker News Board

Re: "You have a 27% 'AI' issue in here"

#21

Post by Miraste » Wed, Oct 04, 2023, 4:38 PM UTC

_yb2s wrote: post #8

I would sue the teacher and school if this happened to me… total BS. Also plagarism and having other people do your work, or even take exams for you is as old as time. How is AI any different? Some trust is in order here. The students are the ones paying to be educated, if they cheat they are only cheating themselves anyways.

>if they cheat they are only cheating themselves anyways.

I've heard people say this a lot. It's a very old-school liberal arts perspective that doesn't fit with the modern world. In practice, for most students, education is a third-place benefit of university behind 1. the certificate and 2. networking.

Re: "You have a 27% 'AI' issue in here"

#22

Post by taylodl » Wed, Oct 04, 2023, 4:39 PM UTC

CoastalCoder wrote: post #15

garciasn wrote: post #9

I am an Eagle Scout and was awarded it in 1995. As part of that process, I had to write up a detailed document outlining my project including how it was conceived, the work, and the outcome. It was rejected on my initial submission because the reviewers felt I it wasn’t written by a sophomore in HS. My parents rewrote the entire thing in what they described as “baby talk” and it was then accepted. The irony is not lo…

Sounds like that troop had bigger issues. If they don't trust an Eagle candidate's attestation of authorship, they probably shouldn't have let (or been the ones to let) the candidate progress that far.

It's not handled at the troop level. The Eagle review is at district and council level. It's common for candidates to receive "assistance" to help along the process and the review boards are on the lookout for that.

Re: "You have a 27% 'AI' issue in here"

#23

Post by brucethemoose2 » Wed, Oct 04, 2023, 4:40 PM UTC

linusha wrote: post #5

Has anyone field-tested strategies to fighting allegations like this and would like to share them? Something I remember from a previous discussion around this topic was writing everything in e.g., Google Docs, where there are captured versions every few seconds. The idea being that the version log shows that one did not copy-and-paste larger chunks of the text.

Or even just set up a "computer cam" that films yourself working.

Most laptops can handle this pretty effortlessly with their encode blocks.

Re: "You have a 27% 'AI' issue in here"

#24

Post by booleandilemma » Wed, Oct 04, 2023, 4:41 PM UTC

_yb2s wrote: post #8

I would sue the teacher and school if this happened to me… total BS. Also plagarism and having other people do your work, or even take exams for you is as old as time. How is AI any different? Some trust is in order here. The students are the ones paying to be educated, if they cheat they are only cheating themselves anyways.

The students are the ones paying to be educated, if they cheat they are only cheating themselves anyways.

The problem is the cheater will then enter into society and tell people "I'm a graduate of $prestigious_university".

At that point they are cheating society.

Would you want to work with people who cheated? Would you want your doctor to be someone who cheated?

Re: "You have a 27% 'AI' issue in here"

#25

Post by mrweasel » Wed, Oct 04, 2023, 4:43 PM UTC

arcticfox wrote: post #12

HDThoreaun wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt oral examinations come back in general. The undergrad model relys on massive classes, I don’t see how you can do oral exams in those 300 person classes without massive cheating as the first students tell everyone else what to expect.

I feel like a 5-minute conversation, not a pre-determined list of oral questions, on most non-hard science topics would be enough to evaluate a student. You could even have an LLM grade it as a second opinion.

We had an exam that was either pass or fail, no grades. The professor and censor would kick you out with a "PASS" in five minutes if they felt that you had sufficient grasp of the topic. Some found it a bit offensive, I just loved how efficient it was. I happened to hang around on the first day of their planned three days examination and the professor just popped his head out the door and asked if I was ready now (a day and a half early), sure... I guess. Five minutes later "PASS. NEXT!"

Re: "You have a 27% 'AI' issue in here"

#26

Post by sdfghswe » Wed, Oct 04, 2023, 4:43 PM UTC

yazzku wrote: post #10

sdfghswe wrote: post #6

Paradigm changes have been happening since there's been humans around. Some people adapt, others don't.

Condescending (and useless) comment of the day.

It's not useless. Hopefully it will remind people (those with an attitude better than yours) that it's all within you to create the change you want.

Re: "You have a 27% 'AI' issue in here"

#27

Post by specproc » Wed, Oct 04, 2023, 4:43 PM UTC

HDThoreaun wrote: post #4

gustavus wrote: post #3

AI Detection services are the oiliest of snake oils. Seems like education is going to need to change drastically in the next few years. Maybe we'll go all the way back to oral examinations again.

I doubt oral examinations come back in general. The undergrad model relys on massive classes, I don’t see how you can do oral exams in those 300 person classes without massive cheating as the first students tell everyone else what to expect.

I'm assuming this is America? 300 person classes is insane, particular how much debt's involved.

I've studied in the UK and EU, and I don't think I've ever been in a class larger than 40.

Re: "You have a 27% 'AI' issue in here"

#28

Post by alwayslikethis » Wed, Oct 04, 2023, 4:44 PM UTC

giarc wrote: post #18

If you submit a word document, is there some way to detect if the words were typed out, how long the document was open etc? Basically trying to detect if the student pasted the text? Obviously students would get around this simply by typing it out word for word, but could work here.

I'm against using surveillance as a means to combat AI. It can just as easily be fabricated.

Re: "You have a 27% 'AI' issue in here"

#29

Post by CoastalCoder » Wed, Oct 04, 2023, 4:45 PM UTC

taylodl wrote: post #22

CoastalCoder wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like that troop had bigger issues. If they don't trust an Eagle candidate's attestation of authorship, they probably shouldn't have let (or been the ones to let) the candidate progress that far.

It's not handled at the troop level. The Eagle review is at district and council level. It's common for candidates to receive "assistance" to help along the process and the review boards are on the lookout for that.

Sorry, I should have used the correct org terms.

But, as the parent of an Eagle scout, I think my point still stands. Either they can, or can't, trust the Eagle to be honest.

IMHO, that trust should be a necessary condition for awarding Eagle.

And if the council isn't capable of making that call, then they're perhaps unqualified for deciding whether or not to award Eagle rank.

(I realize my position is a bit simplistic. I paired it down for brevity.)

Re: "You have a 27% 'AI' issue in here"

#30

Post by fzzzy » Wed, Oct 04, 2023, 4:45 PM UTC

Miraste wrote: post #21

_yb2s wrote: post #8

I would sue the teacher and school if this happened to me… total BS. Also plagarism and having other people do your work, or even take exams for you is as old as time. How is AI any different? Some trust is in order here. The students are the ones paying to be educated, if they cheat they are only cheating themselves anyways.

>if they cheat they are only cheating themselves anyways. I've heard people say this a lot. It's a very old-school liberal arts perspective that doesn't fit with the modern world. In practice, for most students, education is a third-place benefit of university behind 1. the certificate and 2. networking.

So then who cares if they got an education? If they want to pay for 1 and 2 but didn't get an education, why does it matter.