71–80 of 266 posts
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.
This 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is that if teachers want students to write something on which AI can get high scores, then whatever they're teaching is obsolete and will be replaced by AIs anyway.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…
Doing trivial things is often the first step in learning how to do non-trivial things. No one has ever needed a five paragraph essay. It's a completely artificial construct that, hopefully, teaches people to structure an essay.
Electronic calculators have existed for decades but we're still teaching kids arithmetic.
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.
I suspect that advanced hunter-gatherer and early agricultural societies viewed education more as purely motivated by culture: basic useful life skills can be passed on informally within communities or families (so formal education is not strictly necessary for survival), and typical tasks would unlikely to be a risk to others if done incorrectly (making certificates valueless).
However, the modern Western university could arguably originate from the Church (and Jewish institutions before that), in which the education would surely have been considered necessary to correctly interpret texts. In that context, the certificate is a reassurance to the general, uneducated public that they are being led by qualified spiritual leaders (the clergy).
Once you get to the Renaissance and towards the Enlightenment era, it seems as if the increasingly secular focus of education yet again reduces the necessity of certificates and makes broad, 'polymathematic' science and culture more important. The certificates only become important in secular life again once the apprenticeship system breaks down in the late 19th century.
Finally, the idea of a 'liberal arts' course seems to be a reaction to keep the spirit of the Enlightenment alive despite ubiquitous industrialisation, so in this light is both an old school and a new school of though, depending on how you look at it!
These are my thoughts from a very British perspective, so I would be curious to know whether that fits with views from other cultures, such as East Asian or predominantly Catholic ones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Furthermore oral examinations do not scale. We had to do them during covid times and it was gruesome, spending full days in meetings and losing a full week with only 70-80 students.
What about a voiced AI chatbot to handle the simpler questions? Fight fire with fire.
I've actually tested this with a VR app (with support for mobile also), and it actually works quite well.
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.
Earlier 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…
This social media post can also be seen as an attempt to bring attention to the problem. That is not necessarily the same thing as "giving up at the slightest obstacle". It might instead be seen that you disagree with their choice of the front at which to fight.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 simplist…
Trust but verify. The Scout Law is a set of ideals to which a scout aspires. It's not assumed the Scout has achieved them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or even just set up a "computer cam" that films yourself working. Most laptops can handle this pretty effortlessly with their encode blocks.
This is what it's come to with digital art hasn't it? Artists recording their screens.