Live data from Hacker News

Professor denounces mass AI fraud on an exam at Brown

english.elpais.com

271–280 of 771 posts

Re: Professor denounces mass AI fraud on an exam at Brown

#271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doing work with handwriting helps in learning the material. I don't know why that works, but my experience (and others') clearly shows it does.

And I strongly disagree. The moment I have to write stuff down my focus is gone and I might as well be taking a nap. And having to read my own handwriting assures I’ll never look at that page, again. Different strokes

Do you acknowledge you're a minority?

I detest writing and have terrible handwriting but have seen first hand that typing or just listening is not as effective. In grad school I sucked it up and just typed up my handwritten notes so they were searchable when I actually needed them to be.

But writing by hand and just reading them over was usually enough.

Re: Professor denounces mass AI fraud on an exam at Brown

#272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wouldn't a one-on-one interview be a better way to establish a broad evaluation of competency. 1) Possibly, depending on the material, but most classes aren't looking for a "broad evaluation of competency", they're looking for the specific material taught. It'd make more sense as a graduation requirement: the equivalent of a dissertation but for undergraduate work. 2) Even in small classes (e.g. 20-30 students) tha…

Maybe not everything needs to "scale"? You're asking each student to spend well over 100 hours in lectures and study for each class. Surely you can find 20 or 30 minutes per student for evaluation.

Please by all means direct more funding at universities, hire several times as many professors, and have them each teach half as many classes with a fraction of the students. The result would absolutely be an improvement.

(That said, any kind of subjective assessment has its own pile of hazards compared to objective assessments.)

Re: Professor denounces mass AI fraud on an exam at Brown

#273

In the AI era, tests are going to have to be in person and hand written. I have written an article on how I have adjusted my classes to the situation: https://htmx.org/essays/universities-and-ai/ Ironically, I think the AI era may make university degrees a better signal of the intellectual abilities of students due to the presence of pre-computer infrastructure like large lecture halls, industrial-scale copiers, etc.

It's news to me that they weren't already. My exams were all in person and on paper in the early 2020s, and even my physics homework was a "do it on engineering paper and drop it in a mail slot" affair. The professors would forbid computers and phones during lectures and would stop to shame anyone who thought they were being sneaky. Computer Science classes were all on paper for exams, and low level ones did the old…

> It's news to me that they weren't already.

It’s an old (and outdated IMO) tradition at some Ivy Leagues, as the article notes.

It may have worked in the era when students had a little more fear of repercussions and a little more sense that cheating on a test would only cause them problems when courses got harder later.

Now it seems there is little interest in dealing with cheating, as evidenced by how hard it was for this professor to even get attention to the matter within his department. Students also don’t believe cheating will cause them future harm because they assume they can cheat everything up through graduation the same way.

When the rug gets pulled and they have to demonstrate their knowledge in person without ChatGPT, the cheaters collapse. I fear that we’re delaying this reckoning so deep into academic careers now that by the time these students encounter the point where they can’t cheat their way to completion of a course they’re in for a world of hurt, if they continue at all. We really should be coming down hard on cheating earlier and more often.

Re: Professor denounces mass AI fraud on an exam at Brown

#274
post #167

> In the AI era... Back in my day, you could also just Google the problems and find the solutions. What mitigated cheating at UVA was the honor code and each professor's faith and trust in our integrity. That culture was enough to not cheat. Imo, the fix should be to work on culture. Cheating should always be a tempting choice, so that the student may challenge their integrity, which is a muscle that can atrophy.

[deleted]

Re: Professor denounces mass AI fraud on an exam at Brown

#275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with https://www.scantron.com/ ?

For nearly any subject of learning at a level above high school, multiple choice is a terrible way to assess knowledge. Multiple choice can only tell if you reached a final answer (or guessed it). It cannot tell anything about how you reached that conclusion.

However, it is a fast and simple method of assessment.

Re: Professor denounces mass AI fraud on an exam at Brown

#276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if taking longer leads to a better result? Doesn't faster imply less thought?

People can have multiple values. Tradeoffs exist. Are faster ambulances worse for you?

We're not talking about ambulances though?

Re: Professor denounces mass AI fraud on an exam at Brown

#277

In the AI era, tests are going to have to be in person and hand written. I have written an article on how I have adjusted my classes to the situation: https://htmx.org/essays/universities-and-ai/ Ironically, I think the AI era may make university degrees a better signal of the intellectual abilities of students due to the presence of pre-computer infrastructure like large lecture halls, industrial-scale copiers, etc.

Even then, AI smart glasses are now making an appearance in classrooms [1]. The situation is getting really quite ridiculous.

[1] https://www.evenrealities.com/en-GB/blogs/buyers-guide/ai-mo...

Re: Professor denounces mass AI fraud on an exam at Brown

#278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Back in your day education was not sold as a financial transaction to a prosperous life. The honor system is idyllic and requires idyllic circumstances: people who pursue education for no reason other than curiosity or self improvement. If you want the honor system back then you need to offer more stable safety nets. It's not "kids these days", it's the natural result of the systems adults have made.

[flagged]

Seems easy to counter all of this. I study at a German remote university, and they require, next to the front camera, a second camera to record the screen + hands and arms of the student while taking exams, and before the exam starts a complete video of the room, below desk areas, ears, etc. I don't see an angle how to reliably cheat in such conditions, and have seen nothing mentioned by any other student. So I would say it's up to the university if they want to allow fraud like that...they could easily stop it.

Re: Professor denounces mass AI fraud on an exam at Brown

#279

I've been trying to figure out how to avoid AI fraud in my classes, like many others. While not perfect, I've written down my thoughts and attempts in the hope it might help someone else: https://web.hedc.shizuoka.ac.jp/msg-from-center/creating-mea... Edit: Didn't realize the original URL was paywalled. Sorry. This newer URL is open. Apologies.

Nice way to paywall a comment on HN.

Is it paywalled? I honestly didn't realize that. Sorry. I'll edit the comment and change to an open URL and paste the two main ideas here:

FORCED SKILL-BUILDING GOALS

Where my original purpose of giving homework assignments was to help students build their skills through active engagement, I can no longer trust that all my students will have done it by hand. But I still want my students to feel the need to improve their skills. So, I start by considering which skills I think are most important for that class (writing, for example) and build a forced need for my students to improve that skill. For example, in my writing-focused classes, I now give students in-class hand-written exams. I let them know about the essay-based tests (mid-term and final) on the first day of class and encourage them to practice their writing each week, in-class and at home, thus giving them a very clear reason to practice — to get a good grade. Additionally, I take away the need to get a “good grade” on written homework by giving them full points if the homework is turned in on time, regardless of contents or mistakes. Thus, with the need to practice their writing skills for exams and no need to worry about making a good grade on homework assignments, students are encouraged to try the homework themselves — they cannot fail and they can only benefit by doing it themselves. In fact, using an LLM to complete an assignment will likely hurt them as other students who improved their skills will do better on the exams.

Homework once again can be used as a tool for them to improve their abilities through engagement, not just a pointless activity that an LLM can do to help them “get a good grade”.

FORCED LLM FRICTION

Another method I have found for encouraging students to complete assignments on their own is to purposely create friction to using an LLM. I try to plan assignments that it would be MORE work to use an LLM than to simply do it themselves. Humans being what we are, we often will choose the path of least resistance, especially if a grade is on the line!

For example, in one of my classes, I have students write a short story for homework (of about 250 words) about a picture I show them in class. Spelling and grammar mistakes are OK, they are guaranteed to get full marks if they turn it in on time, but the story has to be written BY HAND. To use an LLM, a student would first have to write a lengthy prompt describing the picture in detail and explain the type of output they need (a lot of work), and then they would still have to rewrite the entire story by hand (forcing them to focus on reading, spelling, and handwriting anyway). Thus, by introducing forced friction to using an LLM, especially where there is no danger (no friction) of getting a bad score because of mistakes, encourages students to take the easier path — just do it themselves.

The same idea also applies to shorter listening assignments. As long as the homework receives full marks for turning it in on time (low friction against the fear of poor ability) and the exams including a listening element (clear purpose for trying), the hassle of downloading the audio, sending it to an AI to transcribe it, then upload pictures of the homework questions just isn’t worth it. It’s just easier and more beneficial for students to do it themselves.

Re: Professor denounces mass AI fraud on an exam at Brown

#280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm I think one part every commenter is missing is that students have grown way more mercenary and cynical over the last 20 years. I was shocked in grad school that: a) I got bullied into sharing my math homework so people could copy it, just like high school and college... but this was math grad school! b) In 2011 I TAed a 4000-level course where the instructor left the solutions to the homework online (he wrote the…

We're talking about Brown students here. Im going to guess that it is a safe bet that the 50 cheaters are all legacy enrollments. 1/2 of the graduating class is there for the education, the other half is there because the parents are keeping up the network.

I would not agree with this from my own experience. The truth is the culture, at least at Brown in the 2020s, has little stigma around cheating in big classes. Unclear how different this is in the past, but a friend and I often joke that the student body is very good at reward hacking. If there's a reward, people will find a way to get it! That's across grades (people will cheat), housing (a huge % people will competitively apply for specialty housing or accommodations to beat the lottery), and a whole lot of other things. I don't think this is correlated with legacy, athletics, ect. but an artifact of the current culture unfortunately.
Post reply on HN