431–440 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Essays are async and easier to delegate.
If I'm paying 30k$/yr the professor is damn well reading my essay. If they don't want to teach & grade, they can get a pure research position. Fun fact: pure research positions don't pay as well.
For a human who deals with student work or reads job applications spotting AI generated work quickly becomes trivially easy. Text seems to use the same general framework (although words are swapped around) also we see what I call 'word of the week' where whichever 'AI' engine seems to get hung up on a particular English word which is often an unusual one and uses it at every opportunity. It isn't long before you real…
I did engineering at a university, one of the courses that was mandatory was technical communication. The prof understood that the type of person that went into engineering was not necessarily going to appreciate the subtleties of great literature, so they're course work was extremely rote. It was like "Write about a technical subject, doesn't matter what, 1500 words, here's the exact score card". And the score card…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> AI is here to stay Let's not assume a lot right now. OpenAI and other companies are torching through cash like drunken socialist sailors. Will AI be here as a Big Data 2.0 B2B technology? Most likely, but a viable model where students and laypeople have access to it? To be seen. We all mooched off of dumb VC money at one point or another. I acquired a few expensive watches at Fab dot com at 80% off when they were g…
> drunken socialist sailors Sorry, English is not my first langage what is this expression ? Why does the sailor as to be socialist ? Google didn't help me with this one.
This is similar to how the AI companies mostly spending VC’s money buying these accelerators from nVidia.
This has nothing to do with AI, but rather about proof. If a teacher said to a student you cheated and the student disputes it. Then in front of the dean or whatever the teacher can produce no proof of course the student would be absolved. Why is some random tool (AI or not) saying they cheated without proof suddenly taken as truth?
The AI tool report shown to the dean with "85% match" Will be used as "proof". If you want more proof, then you can take the essay, give it to chatGPT and say, "Please give me a report showing how this essay is written to en by AI." People treat AI like it's an omniscient god.
And ChatGPT will happily argue whichever side you want to take. I just passed it a review I wrote a few years ago (with no AI/LLM or similar assistance), with the prompts "Prove that this was written by an AI/LLM: " and "Prove that this was written by a human, not an AI/LLM: ", and got the following two conclusions:
> Without metadata or direct evidence, it is impossible to definitively prove this was written by an AI. However, based on the characteristics listed, there are signs that it might have been generated or significantly assisted by an AI.[1]
> While AI models like myself are capable of generating complex and well-written content, this specific review shows several hallmarks of human authorship, including nuanced critique, emotional depth, personalized anecdotes, and culturally specific references. Without external metadata or more concrete proof, it’s not possible to definitively claim this was written by a human, but the characteristics strongly suggest that it was.[2]
How you prompt it matters.
[1] https://chatgpt.com/share/67164ec9-9cbc-8011-b14a-f1f16dd8df...
[2] https://chatgpt.com/share/67164ee2-a838-8011-b6f0-0ba91c9f52...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Such as? We need an answer now because students are being assessed now. Two decades ago, when I was in engineering school, grades were 90% based on in-person, proctored, handwritten exams. So assignments had enough weight to be worth completing, but little enough that if someone cheated, it didn't really matter as the exam was the deciding factor. > Return to the old "viva voce" exam? Still used for PhDs. But that…
Oh yes. When I'm teaching a class of 200 students it's totally plausible that we're going to do 10 15 minute one on one conversations with every student. Because that's only 20 days non stop with no sleep. We would need to increase the amount of teaching staff by well over 10x to do this. The costs would be astronomical.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve found LLMs to be relatively poor at writing in someone else’s style beyond superficial / comical styles like “pirate” or “Shakespeare”. To get an LLM to generate content in your own writing, there’s going to be no substitute for training it on your own corpus. By which point you might as well do the work yourself. The whole point cheating is to avoid doing the work. Building your own corpus requires doing that w…
I meant you don't need to feed it your corpus if it's good enough at mimicking styles. Just ask to mimic someone else. I don't mean novelty like pirate or shakespeare. Mimic "a student with average ability". Then ask to ramp up authenticity. Or even use some model or service with this built in so you don't even need to write any prompts. Zero effort You're saying it's not good enough at mimicking styles. others sayin…
Teachers will notice if students writing style shifts in one piece compared to another.
Nobody disputes that you can get LLMs to mimic other people. However it cannot mimic a specific style it hasn’t been trained on. And very few people who are going to cheat are going to take the time to train an LLM on their writing style since the entire point of plagiarism is to avoid doing work.
It is no longer effective to solely use a written essay to measure how deeply a student comprehends a subject. AI is here to stay; new methods should be used to assess student performance. I remember being told at school, that we weren't allowed to use calculators in exams. The line provided by teachers was that we could never rely on having a calculator when we need it most—obviously there's irony associated with ha…
The best method for assessing performance when learning is as old as the world: assess the effort, not how well the result complies with some requirements. If the level of effort made is high, but the outcome does not comply in some way, praise is due. If the outcome complies, but the level of effort is low, there is no reason for praise (what are you praising? mere compliance?) and you must have set a wrong bar. Not…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Written assay evaluation is not and has never been an effective evaluation. It was always a cost saving measure because allocating 30min face to face time with each individual student for each class is such a gigantic cost for the institution that they cannot even imagine doing it. Think about that the next time you look at your student debt, it couldn’t even buy you 30min time per class individually with the teacher…
When I studied physics at Exeter University they still used the tutorial system and finals. Tutorials were held fortnightly; the tutorial groups were typically three or four students. There was no obligation to turn up to lectures or even tutorials. You just had to pass the end of year exams to be allowed to continue to the final. The class of degree that was awarded depended on the open note final exam and the repor…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the students are too lazy and dumb to do their own thinking and resort to ai. the teachers are also too lazy and dumb to assess the students' work and resort to ai. ain't it funny?
I suppose we all get from school what we put into it. I forgot the name of the guy, who said it, but he was some big philosophy lecturer at Harvard and his view on the matter ( heavy reading course and one student left a course review - "not reading assigned reading did not hurt me at all") was ( paraphrased): "This guy is an idiot if he thinks the point of paying $60k a semester of parents money is to sit here and l…
If AI detection cannot be 100% accurate, I do not believe it is an appropriate solution for judging the futures of millions of students and young people. Time to move on. Either from the tech or from the essay format. In either case, we need to change our standards around mastery of subject matter.
AI sucks, but on the other hand Judges and police officers arent 100% accurate too
For a supposedly educated and thinking person like a professor, if they don't understand "AI" and can't reason that it can most certainly be wrong, they just shouldn't be allowed to use it.
Threatening someone like the people in the article with consequences if they're flagged again, after false flags already, is barbaric; clearly the tool is discriminating against their writing style, and other false flags are probably likely for that person.
I can't imagine what a programming-heavy course would be like these days; I was once accused alongside colleagues of mine (people I'd never spoken to in my life) of plagiarism, at university, because our code assignments were being scanned by something (before AI), and they found some double-digit percentage similarity, but there's only so many ways to achieve the simple tasks they were setting; I'm not surprised a handful out of a hundred code-projects solving the same problem looked similar.