I'm sorry, so fucking angry. Students with sources that don't exist. Students with sources that exist but then the quotation doesn't exist.
I'm so fucking mad, because it's extra work for me (that I'm sure as hell not getting compensated for), and it also entirely defeats the purpose of the fucking class (it's writing/research, so like, engaging in a discipline and looking at what's been written before on your topic, etc.)
Kill me please. Comrades, I'm so tired. I just want to teach writing. I want to give students a way to exercise agency in the world -- to both see bad arguments and make good ones. They don't care. I'm so tired.
BTW, I took time to look up some of these sources my student used, couldn't find the quotes they quote, so told them the paper is an "A" if they can show me every quotation and failing otherwise. Does this seem like a fair policy (my thought is -- no matter the method, fabrication of evidence is justification for failing work)?
I'm going back to school for my Master's degree. I am in my 30s and I have realized that "Generative AI" does nothing but cheat me out of learning. Using AI for your homework/assignments does nothing but outsource your thinking and learning to the machine. It makes you dumber.
Almost the majority of my Bachelor's and some of my Master's was pointless busywork, but I guess it depends on the level of your university.
Yeah, I tried to use it a bit for my own mid-30's MSc, and it was useful in the sense that it produced a terrible paragraph with some structure which I could then viciously edit into something new - decent at fixing grammar and finding words-for-things though. But that's not too different from my earlier method of "just mash keys wildly and passionately and then go back over to edit out the sedition and most of the swearing".
The making up sources thing was interesting however, because what it reaaaaally did was put me onto the trick of following up the sources of my enemies, which very often revealed the dishonest cherry picking and outright misrepresentation involved, even in pretty Serious Works.
As an aside I do think it's good to get some experience with an LLM's output even if - especially if - you're against them, because it gives you a sense for them. I hear a very distinct and kinda annoying "chirpy ironic" voice in my head when reading LLM output, from my subconscious doing the analysis. Not totally reliable, I'm sure, but feels helpful.
That i can respect!
I have DeepSeek on my machine locally (it's fine and free and the way i see all these MEGACORPS are the same US based or China whatever) and I have used it from time to time. However, in an academic-sense it can be a tool much like the advent of the "Google Search" in the 2000s. Much like the "Google search" it's important to not just copy and paste whatever you find and call it a day. I think many people (my fellow student I know for a fact) just throw a question into the machine and just skim over the reponse and say "seems fine to me". I don't wanna be that type of dude.