Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 266 posts

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

#81

Post by garciasn »

CoastalCoder wrote: post #29
taylodl wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 simplist…

The council-level Eagle Board of Reviewers likely didn't know the individual scouts and were simply applying their individual knowledge about the content reviewed compared to the whole and made, in this case, poor assumptions about the quality of writing they should expect.

As it relates to academia today, this is now happening at a larger scale with folks lacking more trust, not having to think critically about the individual, and applying a similar outcome based on this. This all goes back to critical thought, understanding your audience, and using tools/knowledge in a way it shouldn't be used; it's just now being used more often and with less control than ever.

To address your specific comment that those folks may not have been qualified to assess scouts attempting to obtain Eagle, I cannot speak to that, but at the face of it, it would absolutely seem they were definitely not exposed to enough quality writing nor did they have the wherewithal to make decisions at the level they were tasked. Working in the business world, I am continually faced with a wide swath of college-educated adults who simply are unable to write coherently, so none of it surprises me today, but it certainly did when I was 15-16 and thought adults were more capable than actually were/are.

I still hate the world.

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

#82

Post by floren »

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #79
taylodl wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The main reason I am not an Eagle Scout is because I took two classes at a winter camp for merit badges, did everything from signup and turned in every bit of work, and then at the end of the class they told me they had no record of me being in it. I did all the work for every other part of that award, but I flat out refused to redo those badges again. I've never jumped through hoops to make up for the failures of la…

Well, you're an Eagle Scout in everything but name, and honestly that might be better -- you get the personal satisfaction, but you don't do the thing all of us find extremely tedious about Eagle Scouts, which is constantly mentioning (in your 40s) how you're an Eagle Scout.

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

#83

Post by LanceH »

taylodl wrote: post #33
_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.

That's a waste of your time and your money. When you consult with your lawyer they're going to point out the Code of Student Conduct you agreed to that stipulates how automated tools are being used to detect plagiarism - tools that have been in place and in use for over ten years at this point. If anything, the new generation of AI tools should reduce the false positives. As another commenter here noted, even humans…

I'm skeptical. It might not make sense financially, but falsely accusing someone of something that wasn't done isn't absolved by using automated tools. It still requires a person to interpret the results and assess a penalty.

Does the Code of Student Conduct say that plagiarism is bad? Or does it say that some secret program will assess the paper and be the sole judge of plagiarism? I'm guessing it's not the latter.

Personally, I would stand my ground and tell the professor straight up, "I'm not writing it again, I've written it once." Leave them with the understanding of the hell to be paid for accusing me falsely.

When I didn't do the work, I accepted the bad grades -- I didn't cheat. When I do the work, they will accept it, or we'll hash it out to the end of the earth.

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

#84

Post by BoorishBears »

taylodl wrote: post #33
_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.

That's a waste of your time and your money. When you consult with your lawyer they're going to point out the Code of Student Conduct you agreed to that stipulates how automated tools are being used to detect plagiarism - tools that have been in place and in use for over ten years at this point. If anything, the new generation of AI tools should reduce the false positives. As another commenter here noted, even humans…

Ironic you wrote so authoritatively while completely missing the topic being discussed: this isn't AI to detect plagiarism, this is AI to supposedly detect AI output.

That isn't done by looking for plagiarism, they're building snake oil models trained on GPT output.

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

#86

Post by tegmark »

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…

wow, computers writing essays that cannot be distinguished from human written essays and the ramifications of this have been going on for… ever. i dont know how to say it nicely… youre just blatantly wrong.

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

#87

Post by _yb2s »

booleandilemma wrote: post #24
_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?

Yes, but it's just one of a multitude of ways someone could cheat at work, including lying flat out about holding degrees (which in most cases isn't even illegal), or simply faking their effort in the job, and not really doing it.

If people are going to cheat themselves out of an education, and then cheat at a job... ultimately they will be 'found out' for not doing their job properly. Unless there is absolutely no objective way to evaluate, measure, or observe job performance, in which case the job is probably nonsense anyway and cheating doesn't matter.

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

#89

Post by sumtechguy »

bluGill wrote: post #62
specproc wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

One someone is standing in front of the room talking it doesn't really matter if there is one person in the room or 1 billion. sure you need a PA system and other technology to support a large crowd, but otherwise it doesn't matter. Most students would prefer to be in a large room with someone who is a great speaker vs a small room with less. If you do have questions - that is what the TA is for and you get to see th…

Also they are the 'weeder' classes as the staff put it to me. Basically everyone wants to go to college. Many can get in. But not everyone is cut out for it. Those classes are usually decently challenging but mostly lectures. They cut out the people who should not be there or are not ready for it. They are also decently big because almost all of the curriculum paths require these core classes. Your second year will be 20-30 people. By the time you are in your 4th year most classes are 10-15 people usually mixed graduate/undergraduate people.

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

#90

Post by billy99k »

fzzzy wrote: post #30
Miraste wrote: post #21

Earlier 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.

Do you want to compete with someone for a job that cheated to get an education and got the job over you? By allowing this to continue, it will just add to the further decline of society.
Post reply on HN