1275
The real monster turned out to be AI plagiarism (thelemmy.club)
submitted 3 days ago by to c/microblogmemes@lemmy.world
133 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (5 children)

Yeah, no. Accuse isn’t convict.

Also, as a teacher I would literally already know they cheated. AI writing is easy to spot. Ironically, it’s always people who can’t write who’re super worried about getting “falsely” caught using AI. Never do I hear creative writing majors or English majors or philosophy majors express a shred of concern. I wonder why that is?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 3 days ago (2 children)

    AI writing that you have spotted is super easy to spot.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 days ago

    When used for cheating by a student you see a lot, it's almost certainly going to be super easy to spot.

    The appeal for cheating is that it skips the work. If they skip the work, they didn't rework the GenAI output. Even if the GenAI output could pass for a human, it's not going to pass for that human that you know.

    Also, advanced classes make 'homework' barely count, so even if you got away with cheating, the in-person assessments are going to ruin your grade.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -3 points 3 days ago* (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

    In my experience, highschool teachers could not be bothered to look over or grade assignments. They would do a lazy "what grade do you think you deserve" essay at the start of the year and carry that grade that you gave yourself through the remaining terms regardless of how much work you did or did not do, even missing that mandatory assignments were skipped.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago

    I had the same experience with High School English teachers... I was a straight C student through school. No matter what I did I couldn't break through a C, especially in English class.

    Then one year a new teacher came to school and early in the school year she gave us an assignment to teach something to the class. This type of assignment was where I shined because it wasn't the typical, boring work... so I dove in. I made sheets for the overhead projector, I had handouts, and overall I knew my shit. I got an A on the assignment. And every assignment after that. Once I forgot to do my homework, but she had told us that we need to turn in something, even if it's a blank sheet with our name on it... so that's what I did. I got an A. I actually had that hanging in my bedroom for a while because I felt it told me a lot about how the world works. At the end of the school year I got an award for 'most improved in English'. The next year, I was a C student again.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 days ago

    You literally cheating doing your job when you use janky AI detectors that have no way to know if the work is made by AI and just hallucinate some score.

    The real AI detection like what is enforced by EU (secretly shifting biases towards certain words to appear more) would not have publically available validators cause otherwise anyone would be able to learn how to avoid getting caught. Plus, you'd have to validate for every LLM separately. Plus, open weight LLM would whoop your ass anyway.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    "People who speak out against this are of no consequence" is not a rebuttal of the argument.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 days ago* (2 children)

    Suppose the question is why even use the tool if you can tell by looking.

    I'm guessing it's because if you just say it, they'll argue or maybe get their parents to argue and if you can have a 'detector' serve as 'evidence'? Especially if they believe in the tool to use in the first place, they are likely to believe in the detector tool, no mater how flawed? Or to just serve as a general deterrent, your work is being checked by a machine and you'll get caught if you try...

    I'll say at least some kids are scared of being falsely accused of cheating because they don't trust the tools to be accurate, perhaps more so in the very anti-AI kids that would avoid the AI like the plague. No perfect answer how you reassure that the tool isn't immediately trusted without also defanging it to the intended audience in that case though...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 child)

    I've used the detectors as well. At my university, accusing a student of cheating is a big deal and you want to go into it with as much documentation as you can muster. Even though I know it is AI, I'm going to be showing it to administrators without my area of expertise and experience. Administrators like reports and numbers, so I run whatever the assignment is through a checker, let it generate a score over 90%, and now I've got a number inside of my paperwork that will encourage my supervisor, or more often my supe's supe, to take my accusation seriously. Before these AI checkers, I used "turn it in", and before that I had LCS tools and diff command.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •