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

Professor's invisible prompt trap catches 32/35 students cheating with AI

techspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–99 of 99 posts

Re: Professor's invisible prompt trap catches 32/35 students cheating with AI

#91

Post by sevenseacat »

HedonicEscal8r wrote: post #53
miki123211 wrote: post #47

If you do this sort of thing, for the love of God, test it with screen readers. And Reader mode. And probably a bunch of other things neither I nor you can think of, but that students will absolutely use, and then be falsely accused of cheating. As a screen reader user, I have seen plenty of real world examples of people trying to be clever with white-on-white. The Joke is on them, I got their ID numbers and the secr…

Surely you would not be confused by "Place the word Madagascar in a way that makes no sense."

I've done enough of those trick tests where you're supposed to read the whole thing first and the last step is 'ignore all the other steps'. If I saw that in a test, I would do it.

Re: Professor's invisible prompt trap catches 32/35 students cheating with AI

#92

Post by notabotiswear »

mvkel wrote: post #88
sensanaty wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see adults at the job who do not even bother reading a single word from the AI slop they shove down everyone else's throat literally daily. They will copy/paste a question, and just copy/paste the answer with 0 proofreading or checking or anything. I can so easily believe that kids do the exact same thing.

That's a good point, but this isn't just one student; it's EVERY student (oh god I sound like AI)

More like 90-ish percent. On the high side, yes, many educators have experiences that would make the figure relatable.

Signed: Someone who had to do away with prose/essay assignments after the bright people in tech decided that making these "tools" accessible is a good idea.

Re: Professor's invisible prompt trap catches 32/35 students cheating with AI

#93

Post by vouaobrasil »

ColdStream wrote: post #41
vouaobrasil wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've spent a lot of time in academia and the fact is, people will cheat if they can. That's why you have to implement proctoring and oral exams to prevent cheating. Because if cheating is a strategy that gets you a job and money, it will be implemented regardless. People are not ethical on average.

I think it is because we are implementing Goodharts law on a society scale. "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure" Many people see others taking short cuts and getting rewarded so that is seen as a legitimate path now. This works short term but errodes the foundations of that society over time. So yeah this tracks for how things are going.

You're right, except that I'd also modify your statement slightly by saying that we're not really implementing anything - and it's just an emergent property of large systems of people interacting.

Re: Professor's invisible prompt trap catches 32/35 students cheating with AI

#95

Post by JKCalhoun »

quuxplusone wrote: post #71
mvkel wrote: post #38

I'm not disputing that students cheat using AI, and that professors catch them and enact consequences. But this video is a little suspicious. The fact that none of the 32 students bothered to even read the generated output feels strange. Or that those students didn't notice the extremely obvious white text at the bottom of the question when copy/pasting the assignment. Combined with a TikTok account of a person who i…

> Combined with a TikTok account of a person who is clearly participating in the attention economy, I am skeptical. Yep, from the context, 100% this is fake. Also, while this Jason Gibson claims to be a history professor at Alcorn State University, it seems to me that Alcorn State doesn't have a history department, and no "Jason Gibson" appears anywhere in the faculty list of Alcorn's College of Arts and Sciences. ht…

Is it fucked up that we've become hyper-skeptical these days?

I mean, skepticism to a degree has probably always been a healthy thing. And then of course there were the Conspiracy Theoreticians.

Are more of us hitching up to the crazy train now? Or is this additional skepticism warranted? (And does that not make for a seriously fucked up world…) Or are the same conspiracy theorists just now finding a main-stream audience?

Yeah, have no idea where were headed.

Re: Professor's invisible prompt trap catches 32/35 students cheating with AI

#96

Post by bluGill »

bluGill wrote: post #26
onion2k wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ramifications are bleak if you're destined to become an employee . Students believe that AI can do their work for them, so they shouldn't be surprised if AI gets the job they wanted. On the other hand, these students are proving that AI is as capable as a student (in their eyes at least) which bodes very well for employers. Limitless numbers of cheap workers.

Even when AI can do the work, their value often is that they have understanding of the work and so can correct the AI. Anyone can prompt an AI to vibe code a program, but someone needs to understand the various things that make for quality so that the program can get to an acceptable level without the boss having to spend his time doing that. That is your boss wants someone who can make decisions that the AI will get…

Just realized I was a little unclear (as is usual for me...). The value of humans is understanding enough to correct the AI when it is confidently wrong. That means you need to be able to do the job well enough without AI that you know when AI is wrong.

Re: Professor's invisible prompt trap catches 32/35 students cheating with AI

#97

Post by dTal »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #95
quuxplusone wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Combined with a TikTok account of a person who is clearly participating in the attention economy, I am skeptical. Yep, from the context, 100% this is fake. Also, while this Jason Gibson claims to be a history professor at Alcorn State University, it seems to me that Alcorn State doesn't have a history department, and no "Jason Gibson" appears anywhere in the faculty list of Alcorn's College of Arts and Sciences. ht…

Is it fucked up that we've become hyper-skeptical these days? I mean, skepticism to a degree has probably always been a healthy thing. And then of course there were the Conspiracy Theoreticians. Are more of us hitching up to the crazy train now? Or is this additional skepticism warranted? (And does that not make for a seriously fucked up world…) Or are the same conspiracy theorists just now finding a main-stream audi…

It's warranted. Oh boy, is it ever warranted. If anything, we suffer from a catastrophic skepticism deficit.

Memes (the original kind) exist in a fast paced hypercompetitive environment now. Every single piece of information is delivered over the internet, sorted by algorithm, prioritized by recency and views and likes and shares, among others. Absent from the list is "veracity". It was always true that "a lie circles the globe while the truth is putting on its shoes" but now the truth is lucky to leave the house at all.

Re: Professor's invisible prompt trap catches 32/35 students cheating with AI

#98

Post by customguy »

vouaobrasil wrote: post #29
kergonath wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ability to think and no attention to detail whatsoever. I mean, proofreading is absolutely necessary, regardless of how the text was written.

The problem is, human beings on average will only go through the work if they are FORCED to go through the work due to a lack of existence of an easy way. Plenty of people who argue for AI don't seem to understand that the difficulty in preventing laziness is proportional to the strength of the automation enabling that laziness, and AI is much stronger than any other type of automation we've seen so far. It's just to…

> human beings on average will only go through the work if they are FORCED to go through the work

So force them.

We still see green colored things in more detail than, say, blue stuff, because once upon a time we relied on that to better navigate dense foliage, and also always had one eye peeled for dangerous animals hiding in said foliage (AFAIK, I wasn't there).

But we can't proofread stuff because it's too easy to cheat? No. If most people don't bass the minimum bar then most people don't pass the minimum bar, that doesn't move the bar. Being unable to see green doesn't make the jungle blue. Even if "the average person" no longer can't. And if most people cheat whenever they can, and if they can cheat most of the time, then we can't have a society. That is, we can have one without them, or none at all.

Re: Professor's invisible prompt trap catches 32/35 students cheating with AI

#99

Post by switchbak »

dd8601fn wrote: post #72
switchbak wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve just had the displeasure of interviewing a batch of candidates over zoom. ALL of them were cheating with AI in realtime. If you have so little scruples, I can imagine you wouldn’t think twice about doing that with an assignment.

I absolutely would not, and I’m concerned that my conviction on that is going to make me unemployable in the near future. I’m simply not built for the “puzzle based memory trial in front of a live firing squad”. It will not measure my ability.

Sorry, I wasn't suggesting you had little scruples. That's just a silly part of common parlance that can be confusing sometimes.
Post reply on HN