As a professor at a community college, I am very hesitant to just declare something is AI generated unless is it very clear. If I suspect something is AI generated I run it through 3 different checkers that I found online and if they don't all agree then I don't call it plagiarism. Normally the writing is so vague that it isn't more than a C anyway.
"You have a 27% 'AI' issue in here"
51–60 of 266 posts
Re: "You have a 27% 'AI' issue in here"
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
People who see education as a valuable credential care.
And yes, there are a lot of people who would like to outsource questions of competence to, "Do you have the credentials that I am looking for?" Any cynicism about the competence of people who do this is fully justified. But conversely, it isn't the worst approach to take to evaluating people when you personally lack competence.
As an example, I would never hire a programmer based on credentials. But it is often the first and only thing that I look for in a random doctor visit.
Re: "You have a 27% 'AI' issue in here"
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
If I go to my doctor, or counsellor, or engineer, or mechanic, or... the list goes on... I care that they actually got an education rather than cheated their way through it.
These are all things I can't personally judge competence in, because I'm not competent in medicine, psychology, engineering, etc. The most reasonable way for me to judge competence is whether an accredited school vouches for them via a degree.
Re: "You have a 27% 'AI' issue in here"
#54Earlier 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'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.
The bigger schools like Harvard often have that for the first year classes, especially classes that are required for all or many majors. The class itself, and the lectures, will have many students -- but there's usually ample availability of grad student TAs for more individualized interaction. A grad student is usually perfectly capable of teaching a freshman class.
Smaller schools and upper level classes generally just have fewer people.
Edit: Keep in mind that teaching is something the professor usually just puts up with, to get the resources and credibility to do the thing they are really passionate about (research or writing).
Re: "You have a 27% 'AI' issue in here"
#55This is apparently unpopular but my take on this is that if teachers want students to write something on which AI can get high scores, then whatever they're teaching is obsolete and will be replaced by AIs anyway. Of course, not mentioning AI as co-author remains cheating. But I think the best course of action is to simply allow students to use AI while mentioning it (and the prompts they've used).
I'm in philosophy and so far no AI has produced a text of interest to me. If it did, then I'd deal with it like with any arguments by colleagues.
Re: "You have a 27% 'AI' issue in here"
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
Students should have the right to be shown exactly where and why texts are flagged. Much of the snake oil will disappear pretty quickly if the solutions are required to provide any form of proof. It's would be funny, if it also wasn't so sad, that the point is that the students need to prove that they did the work, while shitty software can flag their work as being plagiarism or AI generated while providing no proof.
Sounds like a nightmare is about to start for kids, parents, schools, teachers and so on. Would be easily solved by going back to oral examinations, paper and pen in class essays...
Or better yet, get rid of all HOME-work. Do it all inclass.
We train children and up to adulthood that encroaching on time for self is acceptable, and its absolutely not. I remember asshole teachers giving out essay homeworks during christmas breaks and similar, because "we needed to be busy".
No wonder why wage theft is the biggest retail theft we have - those utter lack of boundaries are eroded the moment we set foot in schools.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/owed-employers-face-little-acco...
Re: "You have a 27% 'AI' issue in here"
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't just things were people sit in a room without or limited tools to write the exam work, too?
Yep the old "blue book" exams I had to sit. You get the exam questions on a piece of paoer, and a small booklet of blank paper in which to write your answers. Called a "blue book" because the cover sheet on the booklet was a sky blue color.
Blue book exams were super common when I graduated undergrad less than a decade ago—they may be old, but they're enduring :)
Re: "You have a 27% 'AI' issue in here"
#58This is apparently unpopular but my take on this is that if teachers want students to write something on which AI can get high scores, then whatever they're teaching is obsolete and will be replaced by AIs anyway. Of course, not mentioning AI as co-author remains cheating. But I think the best course of action is to simply allow students to use AI while mentioning it (and the prompts they've used). I'm in philosophy…
Not unpopular at all IMO. AI should be (and is) raising the bar all around, both for students and for teachers.
This teacher is failing the test.
Re: "You have a 27% 'AI' issue in here"
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's all within you to create the change you want. No it most certainly is not.
Of course it is. For example, you can make it a game: how can you write in a way that could never be confused with AI? As a bonus, this is almost guaranteed to mean that you'll have a unique style. Writers have been putting challenges to themselves since writing has existed. Minimize number of words, write without using certain letters, etc. It's fun. This person (furry?) just chooses to give up at the slightest obst…
> bro what's the big deal bro just write the paper exactly the way we want you to bro
Re: "You have a 27% 'AI' issue in here"
#60I 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.
Again, this is a north-americas point of view where most universities and colleges are "private" businesses.